research on cell phone radiation

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

Why has there been concern that cell phones may cause cancer.

There are two main reasons why people are concerned that cell (or mobile) phones might have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems: Cell phones emit radiation (in the form of radiofrequency radiation , or radio waves ), and cell phone use is widespread. Even a small increase in cancer risk from cell phones would be of concern given how many people use them.

Brain and central nervous system cancers have been of particular concern because hand-held phones are used close to the head and because ionizing radiation—a higher energy form of radiation than what cell phones emit—has been found to cause some brain cancers. Many different kinds of studies have been carried out to try to investigate whether cell phone use is dangerous to human health.

However, the evidence to date suggests that cell phone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.

Is the radiation from cell phones harmful?

Cell phones emit radiation in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum . Second-, third-, and fourth-generation cell phones (2G, 3G, 4G) emit radiofrequency in the frequency range of 0.7–2.7 GHz. Fifth-generation (5G) cell phones are anticipated to use the frequency spectrum up to 80 GHz. 

These frequencies all fall in the nonionizing range of the spectrum, which is low frequency and low energy. The energy is too low to damage DNA. By contrast, ionizing radiation , which includes x-rays , radon , and cosmic rays, is high frequency and high energy. Energy from ionizing radiation can damage DNA. DNA damage can cause changes to genes that may increase the risk of cancer.

The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation . More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.

The human body does absorb energy from devices that emit radiofrequency radiation. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation absorption in humans that the general public might encounter is heating to the area of the body where a cell phone is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, that heating is not sufficient to measurably increase core body temperature. There are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

Has the incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers changed during the time cell phone use increased?

No. Investigators have studied whether the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers (that is, the number of new cases of these cancers diagnosed each year) has changed during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies found:

• stable incidence rates for adult gliomas in the United States ( 1 ), Nordic countries ( 2 ) and Australia ( 3 ) during the past several decades
• stable incidence rates for pediatric brain tumors in the United States during 1993–2013 ( 4 )
• stable incidence rates for acoustic neuroma ( 5 ), which are nonmalignant tumors , and meningioma ( 6 ), which are usually nonmalignant, among US adults since 2009 

In addition, studies using cancer incidence data have tested different scenarios (simulations) determining whether the incidence trends are in line with various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008 ( 7 , 8 ). These simulations showed that many risk changes reported in case–control studies  were not consistent with incidence data, implying that biases  and errors in the study may have distorted the findings.

Because these studies examine cancer incidence trends over time in populations rather than comparing risk in people who do and don’t use cell phones, their ability to observe potential small differences in risk among heavy users or susceptible populations is limited. Observational/epidemiologic studies—including case–control and cohort studies  (described below)—are designed to measure individual exposure to cell phone radiation and ascertain specific health outcomes.

How is radiofrequency radiation exposure measured in studies of groups of people?

Epidemiologic  studies use information from several sources, including questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers, to estimate radiofrequency radiation exposure in groups of people. Direct measurements are not yet possible outside of a laboratory setting. Estimates from studies reported to date take into account the following:

• How regularly study participants use cell phones (the number of calls per week or month)
• The age and the year when study participants first used a cell phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the duration of use and time since the start of use)
• The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month (frequency)
• The average length of a typical cell phone call
• The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use

What has research shown about the link between cell phone use and cancer risk?

Researchers have carried out several types of population studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of tumors, both malignant (cancerous) and nonmalignant (not cancer). Epidemiologic  studies (also called observational studies ) are research studies in which investigators observe groups of individuals (populations) and collect information about them but do not try to change anything about the groups. 

Two main types of epidemiologic studies— cohort studies  and case–control studies —have been used to examine associations between cell phone use and cancer risk. In a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people who have tumors and people who don’t. In a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at the beginning of the study is followed over time and tumor development in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cohort studies are limited by the fact that they may only be able to look at cell phone subscribers, who are not necessarily the cell phone users.

The tumors that have been investigated in epidemiologic studies include malignant brain tumors, such as gliomas , as well as nonmalignant tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually nonmalignant tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord ), parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands ), skin cancer, and thyroid gland tumors.

Four large epidemiologic studies have examined the possible association between cell phone use and cancer: Interphone, a case–control study, and three cohort studies, the Danish Study, the Million Women Study, and the Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS). The findings of these studies are mixed, but overall, they do not show an association between cell phone use and cancer ( 9 – 23 ).

Interphone Case–Control Study

How the study was done: This is the largest case–control study of cell phone use and the risk of head and neck tumors. It was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries. The data came from questionnaires that were completed by study participants in Europe, Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no increases overall in brain or other central nervous system cancers (glioma and meningioma) related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant , although small, increase in the risk of glioma among study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, for a variety of reasons the researchers considered this finding inconclusive ( 11 – 13 ).

An analysis of data from all 13 countries reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone ( 14 ). However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.

An analysis of data from five Northern European countries showed an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in those who had used a cell phone for 10 or more years ( 15 ). 

In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators investigated whether tumors were more likely to form in areas of the brain with the highest exposure. One analysis showed no relationship between tumor location and level of radiation ( 16 ). However, another found evidence that glioma and, to a lesser extent, meningioma were more likely to develop where exposure was highest ( 17 ).

Danish Cohort Study

How the study was done: This cohort study linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry.

What the study showed: No association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years ( 18 – 20 ).

Million Women Cohort Study

How the study was done: This prospective cohort study conducted in the United Kingdom used data obtained from questionnaires that were completed by study participants.

What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma ( 21 ), it was not observed with additional years of follow-up of the cohort ( 22) .

Cohort Study of Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS)

How the study was done: This large prospective cohort study conducted in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom used data on health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use obtained from a questionnaire completed by participants when they joined the study. That information was supplemented with cancer occurrence data obtained from linkage to national cancer registries and cell phone records obtained from mobile network operators. 

What the study showed: Among 264,574 participants with a median follow-up of just over 7 years, the cumulative amount of mobile phone call-time was not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma ( 23 ). No associations with cancer risk were seen in the heaviest mobile phone users or among among those with the longest history of mobile phone use (15 or more years).

Other Epidemiologic Studies

In addition to these four large studies, other, smaller epidemiologic studies have looked for associations between cell phone use and individual cancers in both adults and children. These include:

• Two NCI-sponsored case–control studies, each conducted in multiple US academic medical centers or hospitals between 1994 and 1998 that used data from questionnaires ( 24) or computer-assisted personal interviews ( 25 ). Neither study showed a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma in adults.
• The CERENAT study, another case–control study conducted in multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires ( 26 ). This study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when comparing adults who were regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and meningiomas.
• A pooled analysis of two case–control studies conducted in Sweden that reported statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before age 20 ( 27 ).
• Another case–control study in Sweden, part of the Interphone pooled studies, did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among long-term cell phone users between the ages of 20 and 69 ( 28 ).
• The CEFALO study, an international case–control study of children diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19, found no relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer ( 29 ).
• The MOBI-Kids study, a large international case–control study of young people ages 10 to 24 years diagnosed with brain tumors, found no evidence of an association between wireless phone use and the risk of brain tumors ( 30 ). 
• A population-based case–control study conducted in Connecticut found no association between cell phone use and the risk of thyroid cancer ( 31 ).

What are the findings from studies of the human body?

Researchers have carried out several kinds of studies to investigate possible effects of cell phone use on the human body. In 2011, two small studies were published that examined brain glucose metabolism in people after they had used cell phones. The results were inconsistent. One study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain ( 32 ); the other study ( 33 ) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used.

The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the physiological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people ( 11 ). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and investigators not being blinded to exposure status.

Another study investigated blood flow in the brain of people exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and found no evidence of an effect on blood flow in the brain ( 34 ).

What are the findings from experiments in laboratory animals?

Early studies involving laboratory animals showed no evidence that radiofrequency radiation increased cancer risk or enhanced the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens ( 35 – 38 ).

Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP is an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the US Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.

The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in rats and mice ( 39 , 40 ). This large project was conducted in highly specialized labs. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of 3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A research overview of the rodent studies , with links to the peer-review summary, is available on the NTP website. The primary outcomes observed were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells  in the heart and non-cancerous changes ( hyperplasia ) in the same tissues for male rats, but not female rats, nor in mice overall.

These experimental findings raise new questions because cancers in the heart are extremely rare in humans. Schwann cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP plans to continue to study radiofrequency exposure in animal models to provide insights into the biological changes that might explain the outcomes observed in their study.

Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and 0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at the Italian Ramazzini Institute ( 41 ). Among the rats with the highest exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and nonmalignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.

ICNIRP (an independent nonprofit organization that provides scientific advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of nonionizing radiation) critically evaluated both studies. It concluded that both followed good laboratory practice, including using more animals than earlier research and exposing the animals to radiofrequency radiation throughout their lifetimes. However, it also identified what it considered major weaknesses in how the studies were conducted and statistically analyzed and concluded that these limitations prevent drawing conclusions about the ability of radiofrequency exposures to cause cancer ( 42 ).

Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone use and cancer risk inconsistent?

A few studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks in humans, but most studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies include the following:

• Recall bias , which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. Study participants who have brain tumors, for example, may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors.
• Inaccurate reporting , which can happen when people say that something has happened more often or less often than it actually did. For example, people may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
• Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions.
• Participation bias , which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study.
• Changing technology. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones, and cellular technology continues to change ( 43 ). 
• Exposure assessment limitations. Different studies measure exposure differently, which makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies ( 44 ). Investigations of sources and levels of exposure, particularly in children, are ongoing ( 45 ).
• Insufficient follow-up of highly exposed populations. It may take a very long time to develop symptoms after exposure to radiofrequency radiation, and current studies may not yet have followed participants long enough.
• Inadequate statistical power and methods to detect very small risks or risks that affect small subgroups of people specifically 
• Chance as an explanation of apparent effects may not have been considered.

What are other possible health effects from cell phone use?

The most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is distracted driving and vehicle accidents ( 46 , 47 ). Several other potential health effects have been reported with cell phone use. Neurologic effects are of particular concern in young persons. However, studies of memory, learning, and cognitive function have generally produced inconsistent results ( 48 – 51 ).

What have expert organizations said about the cancer risk from cell phone use?

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert working group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The working group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies ( 11 ).

The working group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The working group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding variables rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the working group stated that the investigation of brain cancer risk associated with cell phone use poses complex research challenges.

The American Cancer Society’s cell phones page states “It is not clear at this time that RF (radiofrequency) waves from cell phones cause dangerous health effects in people, but studies now being done should give a clearer picture of the possible health effects in the future.” 

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use causes cancer.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that currently no scientific evidence establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.

In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region ( 9 ). The committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer ( 9 ).

Has radiofrequency radiation from cell phone use been associated with cancer risk in children?

There are theoretical considerations as to why the potential health effects of cell phone use should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to radiation emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults.

Thus far, the data from studies of children with cancer do not suggest that children are at increased risk of developing cancer from cell phone use. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Europe. The study included 352 children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008 at the ages of 7 to 19 years. They were matched by age, sex, and geographical region with 646 young people randomly selected from population registries. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk by amount of use or by the location of the tumor ( 29 ).

The largest case–control study among children, a 14-country study known as MOBI-Kids, included 899 young people ages 10 to 24 years who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2010 and 2015. They were matched by sex, age, and region with 1,910 young people who were undergoing surgery for appendicitis. Researchers found no evidence of an association between wireless phone use and brain tumors in young people ( 30 ).

Which US federal agencies have a role in evaluating the effects of or regulating cell phones?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), including the National Cancer Institute (NCI), conducts research on cell phone use and the risks of cancer and other diseases.

FDA and FCC share regulatory responsibilities for cell phones. FDA is responsible for testing and evaluating electronic product radiation and providing information for the public about the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones. FCC sets limits on the emissions of radiofrequency energy by cell phones and similar wireless products.

Where can I find more information about radiofrequency radiation from my cell phone?

The dose of the energy that people absorb from any source of radiation is estimated using a measure called the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per kilogram of body weight ( 52 ). The SAR decreases very quickly as the distance to the exposure source increases. For cell phone users who hold their phones next to their head during voice calls, the highest exposure is to the brain, acoustic nerve, salivary gland, and thyroid.

The FCC provides information about the SAR of cell phones produced and marketed within the previous 1 to 2 years. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form . SARs for older phones can be found by checking the phone settings or by contacting the manufacturer.

What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation?

FDA has suggested some steps that concerned cell phone users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation :

• Reduce the amount of time spent using your cell phone.
• Use speaker mode, head phones, or ear buds to place more distance between your head and the cell phone.
• Avoid making calls when the signal is weak as this causes cell phones to boost RF transmission power.
• Consider texting rather than talking, but don’t text while you are driving. 

Use of wired or wireless headsets reduces the amount of radiofrequency radiation exposure to the head because the phone is not placed against the head ( 53 ). Exposures decline dramatically when cell phones are used hands-free. For example, wireless (Bluetooth) devices (such as headphones and earbuds) use short-range signals that typically transmit radiofrequency waves at power levels 10–400 times lower than cell phones ( 54 ).

• Share full article

Do I Need to Worry About Smartphone Radiation?

Some studies have linked cellphone use with cancer, so we asked some experts to explain the risk.

Credit... Eric Helgas for The New York Times

Supported by

By Caroline Hopkins

• Nov. 14, 2023

Q: I’m constantly on my phone, and it’s usually near my body when I’m not. Should I worry about radiation exposure?

Spending all day glued to your smartphone probably isn’t doing you any favors. Excess phone use has been linked with a range of concerns, including sleep issues , elevated cortisol levels , joint pain and even relationship woes .

But if it’s radiation you’re worried about, experts say you don’t have to ditch your phone.

“There’s no risk of anything hazardous or dangerous with radiation from cellphones,” said Gayle Woloschak, an associate dean and professor of radiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

As with all cellphones (along with Wi-Fi networks, radio stations, remote controls and GPS), smartphones do emit radiation, said Emily Caffrey, an assistant professor of health physics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. They use invisible energy waves to transmit voices, texts, photos and emails to nearby cell towers, which can shuttle them to virtually anywhere in the world.

But nearly three decades of scientific research has not linked such exposures to medical issues like cancer, health authorities including the Food and Drug Administration say. Here’s what we know.

Not all radiation is harmful

“Radiation” describes many types of energy, some of which do carry risks, said Dr. Howard Fine, director of the Brain Tumor Center at NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

Atomic bombs, or, to a far lesser degree, X-ray machines, emit energy called ionizing radiation that — in high enough or frequent enough doses — can damage DNA and cause cancer, Dr. Fine said.

This is why you usually wear a protective lead blanket during X-rays.

But smartphone energy falls into a category called non-ionizing radiation, Dr. Caffrey said, which isn’t powerful enough to cause this damage.

“A lot of people think ‘radiation is radiation,’ but it’s not all the same.” Dr. Woloschak said. “There’s no DNA damage seen from cellphone use.”

The more dangerous ionizing radiation can separate electrons from atoms, which make up our DNA. Over time, DNA damage can cause cancer.

Why is there still concern?

Most experts and health authorities like the F.D.A., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization agree that there’s no evidence that smartphone radiation causes health problems. Still, several studies over the years have made headlines for suggesting their links to brain tumors. Many of these studies have since been debunked, Dr. Fine said, including those focused on fifth-generation mobile networks, or 5G .

In one study published in 2010 , for instance, researchers found a small association between one type of brain tumor and the highest levels of cellphone use. But the study’s own researchers noted that “biases and error” prevented them from proving cause and effect. Of the study’s various flaws, according to its authors, one was that it relied on people with brain cancer to correctly remember exactly how much they used their phones over many years.

All of the experts interviewed for this story said that the few studies that have suggested that smartphones pose radiation risks didn’t actually prove that cellphones caused those health issues.

Most people in the United States own cellphones, according to the Pew Research Center — and it would be nearly impossible to single out cellphones as a reason someone developed cancer, Dr. Fine said. Unrelated risk factors, such as exposure to air pollution, smoking, unhealthy habits or even just chance, could have been the culprits.

Yet studies with flaws like these have muddied perceptions about phone safety, the National Cancer Institute says.

Staying on the safe side

Cellphones today are nothing like the brick phones of the early 2000s. The phones we’ll use next decade will be different, too. This makes it challenging to study the long-term risks from any one phone. But Dr. Fine said radiation has actually decreased with newer technology, and Dr. Woloschak said new networks aren’t riskier than older ones, either.

“5G radiation is no higher than the 4G was,” she said. “It just allows for greater data transfer.”

Still, the Federal Communications Commission and its international counterparts set radiation limits for new phones . This explains why, in September, French authorities told Apple that it must lower the radiation levels emitted by the iPhone 12 to comply with its maximum limits. Apple rolled out a software update to fix the issue.

Dr. Caffrey said these limits are based on radiation levels that could theoretically raise our body temperatures a fraction of a degree. According to Dr. Woloschak, radiation would need to heat our bodies several full degrees to pose health risks like burns or a fever. “A cellphone’s never going to do that,” she said.

Caroline Hopkins is a health and science journalist based in Brooklyn.

How to Make Your Smartphone Better

The process of backing up your smartphone has become so simplified that it takes just a few screen taps  to keep copies of your photos, videos, and other files stashed securely in case of an emergency.

These days, smartphones include tools to help you more easily connect with the people you want to contact — and avoid those you don’t. Here are some tips .

Trying to spend less time on your phone? The “Do Not Disturb” mode can help you set boundaries and signal that it may take you a while to respond .

To comply with recent European regulations, Apple will make a switch to USB-C charging for its iPhones. Here is how to navigate the change .

Photo apps have been using A.I. for years to give you control over the look of your images. Here’s how to take advantage of that .

Advertisement

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 16 March 2021

5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz

• Ken Karipidis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-7447 1 ,
• Rohan Mate 1 ,
• David Urban 1 ,
• Rick Tinker 1 &
• Andrew Wood 2  

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume  31 ,  pages 585–605 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

165k Accesses

66 Citations

374 Altmetric

Metrics details

The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.

Similar content being viewed by others

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure assessment: a pilot study on mobile phone signal strength and transmitted power levels

Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves

Radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure and contribution of sources in the general population: an organ-specific integrative exposure assessment

Introduction.

There are continually emerging technologies that use radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields particularly in telecommunications. Most telecommunication sources currently operate at frequencies below 6 GHz, including radio and TV broadcasting and wireless sources such as local area networks and mobile telephony. With the increasing demand for higher data rates, better quality of service and lower latency to users, future wireless telecommunication sources are planned to operate at frequencies above 6 GHz and into the ‘millimetre wave’ range (30–300 GHz) [ 1 ]. Frequencies above 6 GHz have been in use for many years in various applications such as radar, microwave links, airport security screening and in medicine for therapeutic applications. However, the planned use of millimetre waves by future wireless telecommunications, particularly the 5th generation (5 G) of mobile networks, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health.

The interaction mechanisms of RF fields with the human body have been extensively described and tissue heating is the main effect for RF fields above 100 kHz (e.g. HPA; SCENHIR) [ 2 , 3 ]. RF fields become less penetrating into body tissue with increasing frequency and for frequencies above 6 GHz the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface heating being the predominant effect [ 4 ].

International exposure guidelines for RF fields have been developed on the basis of current scientific knowledge to ensure that RF exposure is not harmful to human health [ 5 , 6 ]. The guidelines developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in particular form the basis for regulations in the majority of countries worldwide [ 7 ]. In the frequency range above 6 GHz and up to 300 GHz the ICNIRP guidelines prevent excessive heating at the surface of the skin and in the eye.

Although not as extensively studied as RF fields at lower frequencies, a number of studies have investigated the effects of RF fields at frequencies above 6 GHz. Previous reviews have reported studies investigating frequencies above 6 GHz that show effects although many of the reported effects occurred at levels greater than the ICNIRP guidelines [ 1 , 8 ]. Given the public concern over the planned roll-out of 5 G using millimetre waves, it is important to determine whether there are any related adverse health consequences at levels encountered in the environment. The aim of this paper is to present a state-of-the-science review of the bioeffects research into RF fields above 6 GHz at low levels of exposure (exposure below the occupational limits of the ICNIRP guidelines). A meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies, providing quantitative effect estimates for each study, is presented separately in a companion paper [ 9 ].

The state-of-the-science review included a comprehensive search of all available literature and examined the extent, range and nature of evidence into the bioeffects of RF fields above 6 GHz, at levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review consisted of biomedical studies on low-level RF electromagnetic fields from 6 GHz to 300 GHz published at any starting date up to December 2019. Studies were initially found by searching the databases PubMed, EMF-Portal, Google Scholar, Embase and Web of Science using the search terms “millimeter wave”, “millimetre wave”, “gigahertz”, “GHz” and “radar”. We further searched major reviews published by health authorities on RF and health [ 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 ]. Finally, we searched the reference list of all the studies included. Studies were only included if the full paper was available in English.

Although over 300 studies were considered, this review was limited to experimental studies (in vitro, in vivo, human) where the stated RF exposure level was at or below the occupational whole-body limits specified by the ICNIRP (2020) guidelines: power density (PD) reference level of 50 W/m 2 or specific absorption rate (SAR) basic restriction of 0.4 W/kg. Since the PD occupational limits for local exposure are more relevant to in vitro studies, and since these limits are higher, we have included those studies with PD up to 100–200 W/m 2 , depending on frequency. The review included studies below the ICNIRP general public limits that are lower than the occupational limits.

The review also included epidemiological studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) investigating exposure to radar but excluded studies where the stated radar frequencies were below 6 GHz. Epidemiological studies on radar were included as they represent occupational exposure below the ICNIRP guidelines. Case reports or case series were excluded. Studies investigating therapeutical outcomes were also excluded unless they reported specific bio-effects.

The state-of-the-science review appraised the quality of the included studies, but unlike a systematic review it did not exclude any studies based on quality. The review also identified gaps in knowledge for future investigation and research. The reporting of results in this paper is narrative with tabular accompaniment showing study characteristics. In this paper, the acronym “MMWs” (or millimetre waves) is used to denote RF fields above 6 GHz.

The review included 107 experimental studies (91 in vitro, 15 in vivo, and 1 human) that investigated various bioeffects, including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. The exposure characteristics and biological system investigated in experimental studies for the various bioeffects are shown in Tables  1 – 6 . The results of the meta-analysis of the in vitro and in vivo studies are presented separately in Wood et al. [ 9 ].

Genotoxicity

Studies have examined the effects of exposing whole human or mouse blood samples or lymphocytes and leucocytes to low-level MMWs to determine possible genotoxicity. Some of the genotoxicity studies have looked at the possible effects of MMWs on chromosome aberrations [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. At exposure levels below the ICNIRP limits, the results have been inconsistent, with either a statistically significant increase [ 14 ] or no significant increase [ 12 , 13 ] in chromosome aberrations.

MMWs do not penetrate past the skin therefore epithelial and skin cells have been a common model of examination for possible genotoxic effects. DNA damage in a number of epithelial and skin cell types and at varied exposure parameters both below and above the ICNIRP limits have been examined using comet assays [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Despite the varied exposure models and methods used, no statistically significant evidence of DNA damage was identified in these studies. Evidence of genotoxic damage was further assessed in skin cells by the occurrence of micro-nucleation. De Amicis et al. [ 18 ] and Franchini et al. [ 19 ] reported a statistically significant increase in micro-nucleation, however, Hintzsche et al. [ 15 ] and Koyama et al. [ 16 , 17 ] did not find an effect. Two of the studies also examined telomere length and found no statistically significant difference between exposed and unexposed cells [ 15 , 19 ]. Last, a Ukrainian research group examined different skin cell types in three studies and reported an increase in chromosome condensation in the nucleus [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]; these results have not been independently verified. Overall, there was no confirmed evidence of MMWs causing genotoxic damage in epithelial and skin cells.

Three studies from an Indian research group have examined indicators of DNA damage and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in rats exposed in vivo to MMWs. The studies reported DNA strand breaks based on evidence from comet assays [ 23 , 24 ] and changes in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS [ 24 ]. Kumar et al. also reported an increase in ROS production [ 25 ]. All the studies from this research group had low animal numbers (six animals exposed) and their results have not been independently replicated. An in vitro study that investigated ROS production in yeast cultures reported an increase in free radicals exposed to high-level but not low-level MMWs [ 26 ].

Other studies have looked at the effect of low-level MMWs on DNA in a range of different ways. Two studies reported that MMWs induce colicin synthesis and prophage induction in bacterial cells, both of which are suggested as indicative of DNA damage [ 27 , 28 ]. Another study suggested that DNA exposed to MMWs undergoes polymerase chain reaction synthesis differently than unexposed DNA [ 29 ], although no statistical analysis was presented. Hintzsche et al. reported statistically significant occurrence of spindle disturbance in hybrid cells exposed to MMWs [ 30 ]. Zeni et al. found no evidence of DNA damage or alteration of cell cycle kinetics in blood cells exposed to MMWs [ 31 ]. Last, two studies from a Russian research group examined the protective effects of MMWs where mouse blood leukocytes were pre-exposed to low-level MMWs and then to X-rays [ 32 , 33 ]. The studies reported that there was statistically significant less DNA damage in the leucocytes that were pre-exposed to MMWs than those exposed to X-rays alone. Overall, these studies had no independent replication.

Cell proliferation

A number of studies have examined the effects of low-level MMWs on cell proliferation and they have used a variety of cellular models and methods of investigation. Studies have exposed bacterial cells to low-level MMWs alone or in conjunction with other agents. Two early studies reported changes in the growth rate of E. coli cultures exposed to low-level MMWs; however, both of these studies were preliminary in nature without appropriate dosimetry or statistical analysis [ 34 , 35 ]. Two studies exposed E. coli cultures and one study exposed yeast cell cultures to MMWs alone, and before and after UVC exposure [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. All three studies reported that MMWs alone had no significant effect on bacterial cell proliferation or survival. Rojavin et al., however, did report that when E. coli bacteria were exposed to MMWs after UVC sterilisation treatment, there was an increase in their survival rate [ 36 ]. The authors suggested this could be due to the MMW activation of bacterial DNA repair mechanisms. Other studies by an Armenian research group reported a reduction in E. coli cell growth when exposed to MMWs [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. These studies reported that when E.coli cultures were exposed to MMWs in the presence of antibiotics, there was a greater reduction in the bacterial growth rate and an increase in the time between bacterial cell division compared with antibiotics exposure alone. Two of these studies investigated if these effects could be due to a reduction in the activity of the E. coli ATPase when exposed to MMWs. The studies reported exposure to MMWs in combination with particular antibiotics changed the concentration of H + and K + ions in the E.coli cells, which the authors linked to changes in ATPase activity [ 43 , 44 ]. Overall, the results from studies on cell proliferation of bacterial cells have been inconsistent with different research groups reporting conflicting results.

Studies have also examined how exposure to low-level MMWs could affect cell proliferation in yeast. Two early studies by a German research group reported changes in yeast cell growth [ 46 , 47 ]. However, another two independent studies did not report any changes in the growth rate of exposed yeast [ 48 , 49 ]. Furia et al. [ 48 ] noted that the Grundler and Keilmann studies [ 46 , 47 ] had a number of methodical issues, which may have skewed their results, such as poor exposure control and analysis of results. Another study exposed yeast to MMWs before and after UVC exposure and reported that MMWs did not change the rates of cell survival [ 37 ].

Studies have also examined the possible effect of low-level MMWs on tumour cells with some studies reporting a possible anti-proliferative effect. Chidichimo et al. reported a reduction in the growth of a variety of tumour cells exposed to MMWs; however, the results of the study did not support this conclusion [ 50 ]. An Italian research group published a number of studies investigating proliferation effects on human melanoma cell lines with conflicting results. Two of the studies reported reduced growth rate [ 51 , 52 ] and a third study showed no change in proliferation or in the cell cycle [ 53 ]. Beneduci et al. also reported changes in the morphology of MMW exposed cells; however, the authors did not present quantitative data for these reported changes [ 51 , 52 ]. In another study by the same Italian group, Beneduci et al. reported that exposure to low-level MMWs had a greater than 40% reduction in the number of viable erythromyeloid leukaemia cells compared with controls; however, there was no significant change in the number of dead cells [ 54 ]. More recently, Yaekashiwa et al. reported no statistically significant effect in proliferation or cellular activity in glioblastoma cells exposed to low-level MMWs [ 55 ].

Other studies did not report statistically significant effects on proliferation in chicken embryo cell cultures, rat nerve cells or human skin fibroblasts exposed to low-level MMWs [ 55 , 56 , 57 ].

Gene expression

Some studies have investigated whether low-level MMWs can influence gene expression. Le Queument et al. examined a multitude of genes using microarray analyses and reported transient expression changes in five of them. However, the authors concluded that these results were extremely minor, especially when compared with studies using microarrays to study known pollutants [ 58 ]. Studies by a French research group have examined the effect of MMWs on stress sensitive genes, stress sensitive gene promotors and chaperone proteins in human glial cell lines. In two studies, glial cells were exposed to low-level MMWs and there was no observed modification in the expression of stress sensitive gene promotors when compared with sham exposed cells [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Further, glial cells were examined for the expression of the chaperone protein clusterin (CLU) and heat shock protein HSP70. These proteins are activated in times of cellular stress to maintain protein functions and help with the repair process [ 60 ]. There was no observed modification in gene expression of the chaperone proteins. Other studies have examined the endoplasmic reticulum of glial cells exposed to MMWs [ 62 , 63 ]. The endoplasmic reticulum is the site of synthesis and folding of secreted proteins and has been shown to be sensitive to environmental insults [ 62 ]. The authors reported that there was no elevation in mRNA expression levels of endoplasmic reticulum specific chaperone proteins. Studies of stress sensitive genes in glial cells have consistently shown no modification due to low-level MMW exposure [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ].

Belyaev and co-authors have studied a possible resonance effect of low-level MMWs primarily on Escherichia Coli (E. coli) cells and cultures. The Belyaev research group reported that the resonance effect of MMWs can change the conformation state of chromosomal DNA complexes [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]; however, most of these experiments were not temperature controlled. This resonance effect was not supported by earlier experiments on a number of different cell types conducted by Gandhi et al. and Bush et al. [ 75 , 76 ].

The results of Belyaev and co-workers have primarily been based on evidence from the anomalous viscosity time dependence (AVTD) method [ 77 ]. The research group argued that changes in the AVTD curve can indicate changes to the DNA conformation state and DNA-protein bonds. Belyaev and co-workers have reported in a number of studies that differences in the AVTD curve were dependent on several parameter including MMW characteristics (frequency, exposure level, and polarisation), cellular concentration and cell growth rate [ 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. In some of the Belyaev studies E. coli were pre-exposed to X-rays, which was reported to change the AVTD curve; however, if the cells were then exposed to MMWs there was no longer a change in the AVTD curve [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. The authors suggested that exposure to MMWs increased the rate of recovery in bacterial cells previously exposed to ionising radiation. The Belyaev group also used rat thymocytes in another study and they concluded that the results closely paralleled those found in E. coli cells [ 67 ]. The studies on the DNA conformation state change relied heavily on the AVTD method that has only been used by the Balyaev group and has not been independently validated [ 78 ].

Cell signalling and electrical activity

Studies examining effects of low-level MMWs on cell signalling have mainly involved MMW exposure to nervous system tissue of various animals. An in vivo study on rats recorded extracellular background electrical spike activity from neurons in the supraoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus after MMW exposure [ 79 ]. The study reported that there were changes in inter-spike interval and spike activity in the cells of exposed animals when compared with controls. There was also a mixture of significant shifts in neuron population proportions and spike frequency. The effect on the regularity of neuron spike activity was greater at higher frequencies. An in vitro study on rat cortical tissue slices reported that neuron firing rates decreased in half of the samples exposed to low-level MMWs [ 80 ]. The width of the signals was also decreased but all effects were short lived. The observed changes were not consistent between the two studies, but this could be a consequence of different brain regions being studied.

In vitro experiments by a Japanese research group conducted on crayfish exposed the dissected optical components and brain to MMWs [ 81 , 82 ]. Munemori and Ikeda reported that there was no significant change in the inter-spike intervals or amplitude of spontaneous discharges [ 81 ]. However, there was a change in the distribution of inter-spike intervals where the initial standard deviation decreased and then restored in a short time to a rhythm comparable to the control. A follow-up study on the same tissues and a wide range of exposure levels (many above the ICNIRP limits) reported similar results with the distribution of spike intervals decreasing with increasing exposure level [ 82 ]. These results on action potentials in crayfish tissue have not been independently investigated.

Mixed results were reported in experiments conducted by a US research group on sciatic frog nerve preparations. These studies applied electrical stimulation to the nerve and examined the effect of MMWs on the compound action potentials (CAPs) conductivity through the neurological tissue fibre. Pakhomov et al. found a reduction in CAP latency accompanied by an amplitude increase for MMWs above the ICNIRP limits but not for low-level MMWs [ 83 ]. However, in two follow-up studies, Pakhomov et al. reported that the attenuation in amplitude of test CAPs caused by high-rate stimulus was significantly reduced to the same magnitude at various MMW exposure levels [ 84 , 85 ]. In all of these studies, the observed effect on the CAPs was temporal and reversible, but there were implications of a frequency specific resonance interaction with the nervous tissue. These results on action potentials in frog sciatic nerves have not been investigated by others.

Other common experimental systems involved low-level MMW exposure to isolated ganglia of leeches. Pikov and Siegel reported that there was a decrease in the firing rate in one of the tested neurons and, through the measurement of input resistance in an inserted electrode, there was a transient dose-dependent change in membrane permeability [ 86 ]. However, Romanenko et al. found that low-level MMWs did not cause suppression of neuron firing rate [ 87 ]. Further experiments by Romanenko et al. reported that MMWs at the ICNIRP public exposure limit and above reported similar action potential firing rate suppression [ 88 ]. Significant differences were reported between MMW effects and effects due to an equivalent rise in temperature caused by heating the bathing solution by conventional means.

Membrane effects

Studies examining membrane interactions with low-level MMWs have all been conducted at frequencies above 40 GHz in in vitro experiments. A number of studies investigated membrane phase transitions involving exposure to a range of phospholipid vesicles prepared to mimic biological cell membranes. One group of studies by an Italian research group reported effects on membrane hydration dynamics and phase transition [ 89 , 90 , 91 ]. Observations included transition delays from the gel to liquid phase or vice versa when compared with sham exposures maintained at the same temperature; the effect was reversed after exposure. These reported changes remain unconfirmed by independent groups.

A number of studies investigated membrane permeability. One study focussed on Ca 2+ activated K + channels on the membrane surface of cultured kidney cells of African Green Marmosets [ 92 ]. The study reported modifications to the Hill coefficient and apparent affinity of the Ca 2+ by the K + channels. Another study reported that the effectiveness of a chemical to supress membrane permeability in the gap junction was transiently reduced when the cells were exposed to MMWs [ 93 , 94 ]. Two studies by one research group reported increases in the movement of molecules into skin cells during MMW exposure and suggested this indicates increased cell membrane permeability [ 21 , 91 ]. Permeability changes based on membrane pressure differences were also investigated in relation to phospholipid organisation [ 95 ]. Although there was no evidence of effects on phospholipid organisation on exposed model membranes, the authors reported a measurable difference in membrane pressure at low exposure levels. Another study reported neuron shrinkage and dehydration of brain tissues [ 96 ]. The study reported this was due to influences of low-level MMWs on the cellular bathing medium and intracellular water. Further, the authors suggested this influence of MMWs may have led to formation of unknown messengers, which are able to modulate brain cell hydration. A study using an artificial axon system consisting of a network of cells containing aqueous phospholipid vesicles reported permeability changes with exposure to MMWs by measuring K + efflux [ 97 ]. In this case, the authors emphasised limitations in applying this model to processes within a living organism. The varied effects of low-level MMWs on membrane permeability lack replication.

Other studies have examined the shape or size of vesicles to determine possible effects on membrane permeability. Ramundo-Orlando et al., reported effects on the shape of giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs), specifically elongation, attributed to permeability changes [ 98 ]. However, another study reported that only smaller diameter vesicles demonstrated a statistically significant change when exposed to MMWs [ 99 ]. A study by Cosentino et al. examined the effect of MMWs on the size distributions of both large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) and GUVs in in vitro preparations [ 100 ]. It was reported that size distribution was only affected when the vesicles were under osmotic stress, resulting in a statistically significant reduction in their size. In this case, the effect was attributed to dehydration as a result of membrane permeability changes. There is, generally, lack of replication on physical changes to phospholipid vesicles due to low-level MMWs.

Studies on E. coli and E. hirae cultures have reported resonance effects on membrane proteins and phospholipid constituents or within the media suspension [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. These studies observed cell proliferation effects such as changes to cell growth rate, viability and lag phase duration. These effects were reported to be more pronounced at specific MMW frequencies. The authors suggested this could be due to a resonance effect on the cell membrane or the suspension medium. Torgomyan et al. and Hovnanyan et al. reported similar changes to proliferation that they attributed to changes in membrane permeability from MMW exposure [ 43 , 45 ]. These experiments were all conducted by an Armenian research group and have not been replicated by others.

Other effects

A number of studies have reported on the experimental results of other effects. Reproductive effects were examined in three studies on mice, rats and human spermatozoa. An in vivo study on mice exposed to low-level MMWs reported that spermatogonial cells had significantly more metaphase translocation disturbances than controls and an increased number of cells with unpaired chromosomes [ 101 ]. Another in vivo study on rats reported increased morphological abnormalities to spermatozoa following exposure, however, there was no statistical analysis presented [ 102 ]. Conversely, an in vitro study on human spermatozoa reported that there was an increase in motility after a short time of exposure to MMWs with no changes in membrane integrity and no generation of apoptosis [ 103 ]. All three of these studies looked at different effects on spermatozoa making it difficult to make an overall conclusion. A further two studies exposed rats to MMWs and examined their sperm for indicators of ROS production. One study reported both increases and decreases in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS [ 104 ]. The other study reported a decrease in the activity of histone kinase and an increase in ROS [ 105 ]. Both studies had low animal numbers (six animals exposed) and these results have not been independently replicated.

Immune function was also examined in a limited number of studies focussing on the effects of low-level MMWs on antigens and antibody systems. Three studies by a Russian research group that exposed neutrophils to MMWs reported frequency dependant changes in ROS production [ 106 , 107 , 108 ]. Another study reported a statistically significant decrease in antigen binding to antibodies when exposed to MMWs [ 109 ]; the study also reported that exposure decreased the stability of previously formed antigen–antibody complexes.

The effect on fatty acid composition in mice exposed to MMWs has been examined by a Russian research group using a number of experimental methods [ 110 , 111 , 112 ]. One study that exposed mice afflicted with an inflammatory condition to low-level MMWs reported no change in the fatty acid concentrations in the blood plasma. However, there was a significant increase in the omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid content of the thymus [ 110 ]. Another study exposed tumour-bearing mice and reported that monounsaturated fatty acids decreased and polyunsaturated fatty acids increased in both the thymus and tumour tissue. These changes resulted in fatty acid composition of the thymus tissue more closely resembling that of the healthy control animals [ 111 ]. The authors also examined the effect of exposure to X-rays of healthy mice, which was reported to reduce the total weight of the thymus. However, when the thymus was exposed to MMWs before or after exposure to X-rays, the fatty acid content was restored and was no longer significantly different from controls [ 112 ]. Overall, the authors reported a potential protective effect of MMWs on the recovery of fatty acids, however, all the results came from the same research group with a lack of replication from others.

Physiological effects were examined by a study conducted on mice exposed to WWMs to assess the safety of police radar [ 113 ]. The authors reported no statistically significant changes in the physiological parameters tested, which included body mass and temperature, peripheral blood and the mass and cellular composition, and number of cells in several important organs. Another study exposing human volunteers to low-level MMWs specifically examined cardiovascular function of exposed and sham exposed groups by electrocardiogram (ECG) and atrioventricular conduction velocity derivation [ 114 ]. This study reported that there were no significant differences in the physiological indicators assessed in test subjects.

Other individual studies have looked at various other effects. An early study reported differences in the attenuation of MMWs at specific frequencies in healthy and tumour cells [ 115 ]. Another early study reported no effect in the morphology of BHK-21/C13 cell cultures when exposed to low-level MMWs; the study did report morphological changes at higher levels, which were related to heating [ 116 ]. One study examined whether low-level MMWs induced cancer promotion in leukaemia and Lewis tumour cell grafted mice. The study reported no statistically significant growth promotion in either of the grafted cancer cell types [ 117 ]. Another study looked at the activity of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase enzyme in rats after treatment with hydrocortisone and exposure to MMWs [ 118 ]. The study reported no effects at exposures below the ICNIRP limit, however, at levels above authors reported a range of effects. Another study exposed saline liquid solutions to continuous low and high level MMWs and reported temperature oscillations within the liquid medium but lacked a statistical analysis [ 119 ]. Another study reported that low-level MMWs decrease the mobility of the protozoa S. ambiguum offspring [ 120 ]. None of the reported effects in all of these other studies have been investigated elsewhere.

Epidemiological studies

There are no epidemiological studies that have directly investigated 5 G and potential health effects. There are however epidemiological studies that have looked at occupational exposure to radar, which could potentially include the frequency range from 6 to 300 GHz. Epidemiological studies on radar were included as they represent occupational exposure below the ICNIRP guidelines. The review included 31 epidemiological studies (8 cohort, 13 case-control, 9 cross-sectional and 1 meta-analysis) that investigated exposure to radar and various health outcomes including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. The risk estimates as well as limitations of the epidemiological studies are shown in Table  7 .

Three large cohort studies investigated mortality in military personnel with potential exposure to MMWs from radar. Studies reporting on over 40-year follow-up of US navy veterans of the Korean War found that radar exposure had little effect on all-cause or cancer mortality with the second study reporting risk estimates below unity [ 121 , 122 ]. Similarly, in a 40-year follow-up of Belgian military radar operators, there was no statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality [ 123 , 124 ]; the study did, however, find a small increase in cancer mortality. More recently in a 25-year follow-up of military personnel who served in the French Navy, there was no increase in all-cause or cancer mortality for personnel exposed to radar [ 125 ]. The main limitation in the cohort studies was the lack of individual levels of RF exposure with most studies based on job-title. Comparisons were made between occupations with presumed high exposure to RF fields and other occupations with presumed lower exposure. This type of non-differential misclassification in dichotomous exposure assessment is associated mostly with an effect measure biased towards a null effect if there is a true effect of RF fields. If there is no true effect of RF fields, non-differential exposure misclassification will not bias the effect estimate (which will be close to the null value, but may vary because of random error). The military personnel in these studies were compared with the general population and this ‘healthy worker effect’ presents possible bias since military personnel are on average in better health than the general population; the healthy worker effect tends to underestimate the risk. The cohort studies also lacked information on possible confounding factors including other occupational exposures such as chemicals and lifestyle factors such as smoking.

Several epidemiological studies have specifically investigated radar exposure and testicular cancer. In a case-control study where most of the subjects were selected from military hospitals in Washington DC, USA, Hayes et al. found no increased risk between exposure to radar and testicular cancer [ 126 ]; exposure to radar was self-reported and thus subject to misclassification. In this study, the misclassification was likely non-differential, biasing the result towards the null. Davis and Mostofi reported a cluster of testicular cancer within a small cohort of 340 police officers in Washington State (USA) where the cases routinely used handheld traffic radar guns [ 127 ]; however, exposure was not assessed for the full cohort, which may have overestimated the risk. In a population-based case-control study conducted in Sweden, Hardell et al. did not find a statistically significant association between radar work and testicular cancer; however, the result was based on only five radar workers questioning the validity of this result [ 128 ]. In a larger population-based case control study in Germany, Baumgardt-Elms et al. also reported no association between working near radar units (both self-reported and expert assessed) and testicular cancer [ 129 ]; a limitation of this study was the low participation of identified controls (57%), however, there was no difference compared with the characteristics of the cases so selection bias was unlikely. In the cohort study of US navy veterans previously mentioned exposure to radar was not associated with testicular cancer [ 122 ]; the limitations of this cohort study mentioned earlier may have underestimated the risk. Finally, in a hospital-based case-control study in France, radar workers were also not associated with risk of testicular cancer [ 130 ]; a limitation was the low participation of controls (37%) with a difference in education level between participating and non-participating controls, which may have underestimated this result.

A limited number of studies have investigated radar exposure and brain cancer. In a nested case-control study within a cohort of male US Air Force personnel, Grayson reported a small association between brain cancer and RF exposure, which included radar [ 131 ]; no potential confounders were included in the analysis, which may have overestimated the result. However, in a case-control study of personnel in the Brazilian Navy, Santana et al. reported no association between naval occupations likely to be exposed to radar and brain cancer [ 132 ]; the small number of cases and lack of diagnosis confirmation may have biased the results towards the null. All of the cohort studies on military personnel previously mentioned also examined brain cancer mortality and found no association with exposure to radar [ 122 , 124 , 125 ].

A limited number of studies have investigated radar exposure and ocular cancer. Holly et al. in a population-based case-control study in the US reported an association between self-reported exposure to radar or microwaves and uveal melanoma [ 133 ]; the study investigated many different exposures and the result is prone to multiple testing. In another case-control study, which used both hospital and population controls, Stang et al. did not find an association between self-reported exposure to radar and uveal melanoma [ 134 ]; a high non-response in the population controls (52%) and exposure misclassification may have underestimated this result. The cohort studies of the Belgian military and French navy also found no association between exposure to radar and ocular cancer [ 124 , 125 ].

A few other studies have examined the potential association between radar and other cancers. In a hospital-based case-control study in Italy, La Vecchia investigated 14 occupational agents and risk of bladder cancer and found no association with radar, although no risk estimate was reported [ 135 ]; non-differential self-reporting of exposure may have underestimated this finding if there is a true effect. Finkelstein found an increased risk for melanoma in a large cohort of Ontario police officers exposed to traffic radar and followed for 31 years [ 136 ]; there was significant loss to follow up which may have biased this result in either direction. Finkelstein found no statistically significant associations with other types of cancer and the study reported a statistically significant risk estimate just below unity for all cancers, which is reflective of the healthy worker effect [ 136 ]. In a large population-based case-control study in France, Fabbro-Peray et al. investigated a large number of occupational and environmental risk factors in relation to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and found no association with radar operators based on job-title; however, the result was based on a small number of radar operators [ 137 ]. The cohort studies on military personnel did not find statistically significant associations between exposure to radar and other cancers [ 122 , 124 , 125 ].

Variani et al. conducted a recent systematic review and meta-analysis investigating occupational exposure to radar and cancer risk [ 138 ]. The meta-analysis included three cohort studies [ 122 , 124 , 125 ] and three case-control studies [ 129 , 130 , 131 ] for a total sample size of 53,000 subjects. The meta-analysis reported a decrease in cancer risk for workers exposed to radar but noted the small number of studies included with significant heterogeneity between the studies.

Apart from cancer, a number of epidemiological studies have investigated radar exposure and reproductive outcomes. Two early studies on military personnel in the US [ 139 ] and Denmark [ 140 ] reported differences in semen parameters between personnel using radar and personnel on other duty assignments; these studies included only volunteers with potential fertility concerns and are prone to bias. A further volunteer study on US military personnel did not find a difference in semen parameters in a similar comparison [ 141 ]; in general these type of cross-sectional investigations on volunteers provide limited evidence on possible risk. In a case-control study of personnel in the French military, Velez de la Calle et al. reported no association between exposure to radar and male infertility [ 142 ]; non-differential self-reporting of exposure may have underestimated this finding if there is a true effect. In two separate cross-sectional studies of personnel in the Norwegian navy, Baste et al. and Møllerløkken et al. reported an association between exposure to radar and male infertility, but there has been no follow up cohort or case control studies to confirm these results [ 143 , 144 ].

Again considering reproduction, a number of studies investigated pregnancy and offspring outcomes. In a population-based case-control study conducted in the US and Canada, De Roos et al. found no statistically significant association between parental occupational exposure to radar and neuroblastoma in offspring; however, the result was based on a small number of cases and controls exposed to radar [ 145 ]. In another cross-sectional study of the Norwegian navy, Mageroy et al. reported a higher risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of personnel who were exposed to radar; the study found positive associations with a large number of other chemical and physical exposures, but the study involved multiple comparisons so is prone to over-interpretation [ 146 ]. Finally, a number of pregnancy outcomes were investigated in a cohort study of Norwegian navy personnel enlisted between 1950 and 2004 [ 147 ]. The study reported an increase in perinatal mortality for parental service aboard fast patrol boats during a short period (3 months); exposure to radar was one of many possible exposures when serving on fast patrol boats and the result is prone to multiple testing. No associations were found between long-term exposure and any pregnancy outcomes.

There is limited research investigating exposure to radar and other diseases. In a large case-control study of US military veterans investigating a range of risk factors and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Beard et al. did not find a statistically significant association with radar [ 148 ]; the study reported a likely under-ascertainment of non-exposed cases, which may have biased the result away from the null. The cohort studies on military personnel did not find statistically significant associations between exposure to radar and other diseases [ 122 , 124 , 125 ].

A number of observational studies have investigated outcomes measured on volunteers in the laboratory. They are categorised as epidemiological studies because exposure to radar was not based on provocation. These studies investigated genotoxicity [ 149 ], oxidative stress [ 149 ], cognitive effects [ 150 ] and endocrine function [ 151 ]; the studies generally reported positive associations with radar. These volunteer studies did not sample from a defined population and are prone to bias [ 152 ].

The experimental studies investigating exposure to MMWs at levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits have looked at a variety of biological effects. Genotoxicity was mainly examined by using comet assays of exposed cells. This approach has consistently found no evidence of DNA damage in skin cells in well-designed studies. However, animal studies conducted by one research group reported DNA strand breaks and changes in enzymes that control the build-up of ROS, noting that these studies had low animal numbers (six animals exposed); these results have not been independently replicated. Studies have also investigated other indications of genotoxicity including chromosome aberrations, micro-nucleation and spindle disturbances. The methods used to investigate these indicators have generally been rigorous; however, the studies have reported contradictory results. Two studies by a Russian research group have also reported indicators of DNA damage in bacteria, however, these results have not been verified by other investigators.

The studies of the effect of MMWs on cell proliferation primarily focused on bacteria, yeast cells and tumour cells. Studies of bacteria were mainly from an Armenian research group that reported a reduction in the bacterial growth rate of exposed E. coli cells at different MMW frequencies; however, the studies suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control and heating due to high RF energy deposition may have contributed to the results. Other authors have reported no effect of MMWs on E. coli cell growth rate. The results on cell proliferation of yeast exposed to MMWs were also contradictory. An Italian research group that has conducted the majority of the studies on tumour cells reported either a reduction or no change in the proliferation of exposed cells; however, these studies also suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control.

The studies on gene expression mainly examined two different indicators, expression of stress sensitive genes and chaperone proteins and the occurrence of a resonance effect in cells to explain DNA conformation state changes. Most studies reported no effect of low-level MMWs on the expression of stress sensitive genes or chaperone proteins using a range of experimental methods to confirm these results; noting that these studies did not use blinding so experimental bias cannot be excluded from the results. A number of studies from a Russian research group reported a resonance effect of MMWs, which they propose can change the conformation state of chromosomal DNA complexes. Their results relied heavily on the AVTD method for testing changes in the DNA conformation state, however, the biological relevance of results obtained through the AVTD method has not been independently validated.

Studies on cell signalling and electrical activity reported a range of different outcomes including increases or decreases in signal amplitude and changes in signal rhythm, with no consistent effect noting the lack of blinding in most of the studies. Further, temperature contributions could not be eliminated from the studies and in some cases thermal interactions by conventional heating were studied and found to differ from the MMW effects. The results from some studies were based on small sample sizes, some being confined to a single specimen, or by observed effects only occurring in a small number of the samples tested. Overall, the reported electrical activity effects could not be dismissed as being within normal variability. This is indicated by studies reporting the restoration of normal function within a short time during ongoing exposure. In this case there is no implication of an expected negative health outcome.

Studies on membrane effects examined changes in membrane properties and permeability. Some studies observed changes in transitions from liquid to gel phase or vice versa and the authors implied that MMWs influenced cell hydration, however the statistical methods used in these studies were not described so it is difficult to examine the validity of these results. Other studies observing membrane properties in artificial cell suspensions and dissected tissue reported changes in vesicle shape, reduced cell volume and morphological changes although most of these studies suffered from various methodological problems including poor temperature control and no blinding. Experiments on bacteria and yeast were conducted by the same research group reporting changes in membrane permeability, which was attributed to cell proliferation effects, however, the studies suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control. Overall, although there were a variety of membrane bioeffects reported, these have not been independently replicated.

The limited number of studies on a number of other effects from exposure to MMWs below the ICNIRP limits generally reported little to no consistent effects. The single in vivo study on cancer promotion did not find an effect although the study did not include sham controls. Effects on reproduction were contradictory that may have been influenced by opposing objectives of examining adverse health effects or infertility treatment. Further, the only study on human sperm found no effects of low-level MMWs. The studies on reproduction suffered from inadequate dosimetry and temperature control, and since sperm is sensitive to temperature, the effect of heating due to high RF energy deposition may have contributed to the studies showing an effect. A number of studies from two research groups reported effects on ROS production in relation to reproduction and immune function; the in vivo studies had low animal numbers (six animals per exposure) and the in vitro studies generally had inadequate dosimetry and temperature control. Studies on fatty acid composition and physiological indicators did not generally show any effects; poor temperature control was also a problem in the majority of these studies. A number of other studies investigating various other biological effects reported mixed results.

Although a range of bioeffects have been reported in many of the experimental studies, the results were generally not independently reproduced. Approximately half of the studies were from just five laboratories and several studies represented a collaboration between one or more laboratories. The exposure characteristics varied considerably among the different studies with studies showing the highest effect size clustered around a PD of approximately 1 W/m 2 . The meta-analysis of the experimental studies in our companion paper [ 9 ] showed that there was no dose-response relationship between the exposure (either PD or SAR) and the effect size. In fact, studies with a higher exposure tended to show a lower effect size, which is counterfactual. Most of the studies showing a large effect size were conducted in the frequency range around 40–55 GHz, representing investigations into the use of MMWs for therapeutic purposes, rather than deleterious health consequences. Future experimental research would benefit from investigating bioeffects at the specific frequency range of the next stage of the 5 G network roll-out in the range 26–28 GHz. Mobile communications beyond the 5 G network plan to use frequencies higher than 30 GHz so research across the MMW band is relevant.

An investigation into the methods of the experimental studies showed that the majority of studies were lacking in a number of quality criteria including proper attention to dosimetry, incorporating positive controls, using blind evaluation or accurately measuring or controlling the temperature of the biological system being tested. Our meta-analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [ 9 ]. The meta-analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect. Future research should pay careful attention to the experimental design to reduce possible sources of artefact.

The experimental studies included in this review reported PDs below the ICNIRP exposure limits. Many of the authors suggested that the resulting biological effects may be related to non-thermal mechanisms. However, as is shown in our meta-analysis, data from these studies should be treated with caution because the estimated SAR values in many of the studies were much higher than the ICNIRP SAR limits [ 9 ]. SAR values much higher than the ICNIRP guidelines are certainly capable of producing significant temperature rise and are far beyond the levels expected for 5 G telecommunication devices [ 1 ]. Future research into the low-level effects of MMWs should pay particular attention to appropriate temperature control in order to avoid possible heating effects.

Although a systematic review of experimental studies was not conducted, this paper presents a critical appraisal of study design and quality of all available studies into the bioeffects of low level MMWs. The conclusions from the review of experimental studies are supported by a meta-analysis in our companion paper [ 9 ]. Given the low-quality methods of the majority of the experimental studies we infer that a systematic review of different bioeffects is not possible at present. Our review includes recommendations for future experimental research. A search of the available literature showed a further 44 non-English papers that were not included in our review. Although the non-English papers may have some important results it is noted that the majority are from research groups that have published English papers that are included in our review.

The epidemiological studies on MMW exposure from radar that has a similar frequency range to that of 5 G and exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits in most situations, provided little evidence of an association with any adverse health effects. Only a small number of studies reported positive associations with various methodological issues such as risk of bias, confounding and multiple testing questioning the result. The three large cohort studies of military personnel exposed to radar in particular did not generally show an association with cancer or other diseases. A key concern across all the epidemiological studies was the quality of exposure assessment. Various challenges such as variability in complex occupational environments that also include other co-exposures, retrospective estimation of exposure and an appropriate exposure metric remain central in studies of this nature [ 153 ]. Exposure in most of the epidemiological studies was self-reported or based on job-title, which may not necessarily be an adequate proxy for exposure to RF fields above 6 GHz. Some studies improved on exposure assessment by using expert assessment and job-exposure matrices, however, the possibility of exposure misclassification is not eliminated. Another limitation in many of the studies was the poor assessment of possible confounding including other occupational exposures and lifestyle factors. It should also be noted that close proximity to certain very powerful radar units could have exceeded the ICNIRP occupational limits, therefore the reported effects especially related to reproductive outcomes could potentially be related to heating.

Given that wireless communications have only recently started to use RF frequencies above 6 GHz there are no epidemiological studies investigating 5 G directly as yet. Some previous epidemiological studies have reported a possible weak association between mobile phone use (from older networks using frequencies below 6 GHz) and brain cancer [ 11 ]. However, methodological limitations in these studies prevent conclusions of causality being drawn from the observations [ 152 ]. Recent investigations have not shown an increase in the incidence of brain cancer in the population that can be attributed to mobile phone use [ 154 , 155 ]. Future epidemiological research should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.

The review of experimental studies provided no confirmed evidence that low-level MMWs are associated with biological effects relevant to human health. Many of the studies reporting effects came from the same research groups and the results have not been independently reproduced. The majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control so the possibility of experimental artefact cannot be excluded. Further, many of the effects reported may have been related to heating from high RF energy deposition so the assertion of a ‘low-level’ effect is questionable in many of the studies. Future studies into the low-level effects of MMWs should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. The results from epidemiological studies presented little evidence of an association between low-level MMWs and any adverse health effects. Future epidemiological research would benefit from specific investigation on the impact of 5 G and future telecommunication technologies.

Wu T, Rappaport TS, Collins CM. Safe for generations to come: considerations of safety for millimeter waves in wireless communications. IEEE Micro Mag. 2015;16:65–84.

Article   Google Scholar  

Health protection agency (HPA). Health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: the report of the independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation (AGNIR). HPA. 2012; RCE 20.

Scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks (SCENHIR). Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Euro Comm. 2015; 1831-4783.

Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency (ARPANSA). Radiation protection standard for maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields—3 kHz to 300 GHz. Radiation Protection Series 3. ARPANSA; 2002.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020;118:483–524.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE 2019; C95.1.

Stam R. Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields). National institute for public health and the environment, RIVM 2018.

Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G Wireless communication and health effects—a pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:3406.

Article   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wood A, Mate R, Karipidis K. Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00307-7 .

International commission on non-Ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP). Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and health consequences (100 kHz-300 GHz). ICNIRP 2009; 978-3-934994-10-2.

International agency for research on cancer (IARC). IARC monographs: non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC 2013;102:1–460.

Google Scholar  

Garaj-Vrhovac V, Horvat D, Koren Z. The relationship between colony-forming ability, chromosome aberrations and incidence of micronuclei in V79 Chinese hamster cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res Lett. 1991;263:143–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Garaj-Vrhovac V, Fučić A, Horvat D. The correlation between the frequency of micronuclei and specific chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to microwave radiation in vitro. Mutat Res Lett. 1992;281:181–6.

Korenstein-Ilan A, Barbul A, Hasin P, Eliran A, Gover A, Korenstein R. Terahertz radiation increases genomic instability in human lymphocytes. Radiat Res. 2008;170:224–34.

Hintzsche H, Jastrow C, Kleine-Ostmann T, Kärst U, Schrader T, Stopper H. Terahertz electromagnetic fields (0.106 THz) do not induce manifest genomic damage in vitro. PloS One. 2012;7:e46397.

Koyama S, Narita E, Shimizu Y, Suzuki Y, Shiina T, Taki M, et al. Effects of long-term exposure to 60 GHz millimeter-wavelength radiation on the genotoxicity and heat shock protein (Hsp) expression of cells derived from human eye. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:802.

Koyama S, Narita E, Suzuki Y, Shiina T, Taki M, Shinohara N, et al. Long-term exposure to a 40-GHz electromagnetic field does not affect genotoxicity or heat shock protein expression in HCE-T or SRA01/04 cells. J Radiat Res. 2019;60:417–23.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De Amicis A, De Sanctis S, Di Cristofaro S, Franchini V, Lista F, Regalbuto E, et al. Biological effects of in vitro THz radiation exposure in human foetal fibroblasts. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015;793:150–60.

Franchini V, Regalbuto E, De Amicis A, De Sanctis S, Di Cristofaro S, Coluzzi E, et al. Genotoxic effects in human fibroblasts exposed to microwave radiation. Health Phys. 2018;115:126–39.

Shckorbatov YG, Grigoryeva NN, Shakhbazov VG, Grabina VA, Bogoslavsky AM. Microwave irradiation influences on the state of human cell nuclei. Bioelectromagnetics. 1998;19:414–9.

Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, Kolchigin NN, Grabina VA, Batrakov DO, Kalashnikov VV. The influence of differently polarised microwave radiation on chromatin in human cells. Int J Radiat Biol. 2009;85:322–9.

Shckorbatov YG, Pasiuga VN, Goncharuk EI, Petrenko TP, Grabina VA, Kolchigin NN, et al. Effects of differently polarized microwave radiation on the microscopic structure of the nuclei in human fibroblasts. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2010;11:801–5.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Paulraj R, Behari J. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 2006;596:76–80.

Kesari KK, Behari J. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2009;158:126.

Kumar S, Kesari KK, Behari J. Evaluation of genotoxic effects in male Wistar rats following microwave exposure. Indian J Exp Biol. 2010;48:586–92.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crouzier D, Perrin A, Torres G, Dabouis V, Debouzy JC. Pulsed electromagnetic field at 9.71 GHz increase free radical production in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Patho Biol. 2009;57:245–51.

Smolyanskaya AZ, Vilenskaya RL. Effects of millimeter-band electromagnetic radiation on the functional activity of certain genetic elements of bacterial cells. Sov Phys. 1974;16:571. USPEKHI

Lukashevsky KV, Belyaev IY. Switching of prophage lambda genes in Escherichia coli by millimetre waves. Med Sci Res. 1990;18:955–7.

Kalantaryan VP, Vardevanyan PO, Babayan YS, Gevorgyan ES, Hakobyan SN, Antonyan AP. Influence of low intensity coherent electromagnetic millimeter radiation (EMR) on aqua solution of DNA. Prog Electromag Res. 2010;13:1–9.

Hintzsche H, Jastrow C, Kleine-Ostmann T. Terahertz radiation induces spindle disturbances in human-hamster hybrid cells. Radiat Res. 2011;175:569–74.

Zeni O, Gallerano GP, Perrotta A, Romano M, Sannino A, Sarti M, et al. Cytogenetic observations in human peripheral blood leukocytes following in vitro exposure to THz radiation: a pilot study. Health Phys. 2007;92:349–57.

Gapeyev A, Lukyanova N, Gudkov S. Hydrogen peroxide induced by modulated electromagnetic radiation protects the cells from DNA damage. Open Life Sci. 2014;9:915–21.

Gapeyev AB, Lukyanova NA. Pulse-modulated extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation protects cellular DNA from the damaging effects of physical and chemical factors in vitro. Biophys. 2015;60:732–8.

Webb SJ, Dodds DD. Inhibition of bacterial cell growth by 136 GC microwaves. Nature. 1968;218:374–5.

Webb SJ, Booth AD. Absorption of microwaves by microorganisms. Nature. 1969;222:1199–200.

Rojavin MA, Ziskin MC. Effect of millimeter waves on survival of UVC‐exposed Escherichia coli. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16:188–96.

Pakhomova ON, Pakhomov AG, Akyel Y. Effect of millimeter waves on UV-induced recombination and mutagenesis in yeast. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1997;43:227–32.

Cohen I, Cahan R, Shani G, Cohen E, Abramovich A. Effect of 99 GHz continuous millimeter wave electro-magnetic radiation on E. coli viability and metabolic activity. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010;86:390–9.

Tadevosyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation enforces bacterial effects of inhibitors and antibiotics. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2008;51:97–103.

Torgomyan H, Trchounian A. Low-intensity electromagnetic irradiation of 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies enhances the effects of disulfide bonds reducer on Escherichia coli growth and affects the bacterial surface oxidation–reduction state. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;414:265–9.

Torgomyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Low intensity electromagnetic irradiation with 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies affects Escherichia coli growth and changes water properties. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011;60:275–81.

Torgomyan H, Hovnanyan K, Trchounian A. Escherichia coli growth changes by the mediated effects after low-intensity electromagnetic irradiation of extremely high frequencies. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2012;65:445–54.

Torgomyan H, Ohanyan V, Blbulyan S, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Electromagnetic irradiation of Enterococcus hirae at low-intensity 51.8-and 53.0-GHz frequencies: changes in bacterial cell membrane properties and enhanced antibiotics effects. FEMS microbiol Lett. 2012;329:131–7.

Soghomonyan D, Trchounian A. Comparable effects of low-intensity electromagnetic irradiation at the frequency of 51.8 and 53 GHz and antibiotic ceftazidime on Lactobacillus acidophilus growth and survival. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2013;67:829–35.

Hovnanyan K, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. The distinguishing effects of low‐intensity electromagnetic radiation of different extremely high frequencies on Enterococcus hirae: growth rate inhibition and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Lett Appl microbiol. 2017;65:220–5.

Grundler W, Keilmann F. Nonthermal effects of millimeter microwaves on yeast growth. Z Naturforsch. 1977;33:15–22.

Grundler W, Keilmann F. Sharp resonances in yeast growth prove nonthermal sensitivity to microwaves. Phys Rev Lett. 1983;51:1214.

Furia L, Hill DW, Gandhi OMP. Effect of millimeter-wave irradiation on growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. IEEE Trans Biom Eng. 1986;33:993–9.

Gos P, Eicher B, Kohli J, Heyer WD. Extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields at low power density do not affect the division of exponential phase Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997;18:142–55.

Chidichimo G, Beneduci A, Nicoletta M, Critelli M, De RR, Tkatchenko Y, et al. Selective inhibition of tumoral cells growth by low power millimeter waves. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:1681–8.

Beneduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, Perrotte E. Frequency and irradiation time-dependant antiproliferative effect of low-power millimeter waves on RPMI 7932 human melanoma cell line. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(2A):1023–8.

Beneduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, Perrotte E. Transmission electron microscopy study of the effects produced by wide-band low-power millimeter waves on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells in culture. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(2A):1009–13.

Beneduci A. Evaluation of the potential in vitro antiproliferative effects of millimeter waves at some therapeutic frequencies on RPMI 7932 human skin malignant melanoma cells. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2009;1:25–32.

Beneduci A, Chidichimo G, Tripepi S, Perrotta E, Cufone F. Antiproliferative effect of millimeter radiation on human erythromyeloid leukemia cell line K562 in culture: ultrastructural-and metabolic-induced changes. Bioelectrochemistry. 2007;70:214–20.

Yaekashiwa N, Otsuki S, Hayashi SI, Kawase K. Investigation of the non-thermal effects of exposing cells to 70–300 GHz irradiation using a widely tunable source. J Radiat Res. 2017;59:116–21.

Badzhinyan SA, Sayadyan AB, Sarkisyan NK, Grigoryan RM, Gasparyan GG. Lethal effect of electromagnetic radiation of the millimeter wavelength range on cell cultures of chicken embryo. Dokl Biochem Biophys. 2001;377:94–5.

Shiina T, Suzuki Y, Kasai Y, Inami Y, Taki M, Wake K. Effect of two-times 24 h exposures to 60 GHz millimeter-waves on neurite outgrowth in PC12VG cells in consideration of polarization. IEEE Int Sympo Electromag Compat. 2014;13:166–9.

Le Quément C, Nicolas Nicolaz C, Zhadobov M, Desmots F, Sauleau R, Aubry M, et al. Whole‐genome expression analysis in primary human keratinocyte cell cultures exposed to 60 GHz radiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012;33:147–58.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, Le Coq L, Thouroude D, Orlov I, Michel D et al. 60 GHz electromagnetic fields do not activate stress-sensitive gene expression. IEEE 11th Int Sympo on Antenna Technol and appl electromag. 2005;11:1–4.

Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, Le Coq L, Debure L, Thouroude D, Michel D, et al. Low‐power millimeter wave radiations do not alter stress‐sensitive gene expression of chaperone proteins. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28:188–96.

Zhadobov M, Nicolaz CN, Sauleau R, Desmots F, Thouroude D, Michel D, et al. Evaluation of the potential biological effects of the 60-GHz millimeter waves upon human cells. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag. 2009;57:2949–56.

Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Desmots F, Ansart A, Sauleau R, Thouroude D, et al. Study of narrow band millimeter‐wave potential interactions with endoplasmic reticulum stress sensor genes. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008;30:365–73.

Nicolaz CN, Zhadobov M, Desmots F, Sauleau R, Thouroude D, Michel D, et al. Absence of direct effect of low-power millimeter-wave radiation at 60.4 GHz on endoplasmic reticulum stress. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2009;25:471–8.

Belyaev IY, Alipov YD, Shcheglov VS, Lystsov VN. Resonance effect of microwaves on the genome conformational state of E. coli cells. Z Naturforsch C. 1992;47:621–7.

Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov YD. Existence of selection rules on helicity during discrete transitions of the genome conformational state of E. coli cells exposed to low-level millimetre radiation. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1992;27:405–11.

Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov YD. Selection rules on helicity during discrete transitions of the genome conformational state in intact and X-rayed cells of E. coli in millimeter range of electromagnetic field. Charg Field Eff Biosyst. 1992;3:115–26.

Belyaev I, Alipov YD, Shcheglov VS, Chromosome DNA. as a target of resonant interaction between Escherichia coli cells and low–intensity millimeter waves. Electro Magnetobiol. 1992;11:97–108.

Belyaev IY, Alipov YD, Polunin VA, Shcheglov VS. Evidence for dependence of resonant frequency of millimeter wave interaction with Escherichia coli K12 cells on haploid genome length. Electro Magnetobiol. 1993;12:39–49.

Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov YD, Radko SP. Regularities of separate and combined effects of circularly polarized millimeter waves on E. coli cells at different phases of culture growth. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1993;31:49–63.

Belyaev IY, Alipov YD, Shcheglov VS, Polunin VA, Aizenberg OA. Cooperative response of Escherichia coli cells to the resonance effect of millimeter waves at super low intensity. Electro Magnetobiol. 1994;13:53–66.

Belyaev IY, Kravchenko VG. Resonance effect of low-intensity millimeter waves on the chromatin conformational state of rat thymocytes. Z Naturforsch. 1994;49:352–8.

Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov YD, Polunin VA. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10‐19 to 3× 10‐3 W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17:312–21.

Shcheglov VS, Belyaev I, Alipov YD, Ushakov VL. Power-dependent rearrangement in the spectrum of resonance effect of millimeter waves on the genome conformational state of Escherichia Coli cells. Electro Magnetobiol. 1997;16:69–82.

Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Belyaev I. Cell-to-cell communication in response of E. coli cells at different phases of growth to low-intensity microwaves. Biochim biophys Acta. 2002;1572:101–6.

Gandhi OP, Hagmann MJ, Hill DW, Partlow LM, Bush L. Millimeter wave absorption spectra of biological samples. Bioelectromagnetics. 1980;1:285–98.

Bush LG, Hill DW, Riazi A, Stensaas LJ, Partlow LM, Gandhi OP. Effects of millimeter‐wave radiation on monolayer cell cultures. III. A search for frequency‐specific athermal biological effects on protein synthesis. Bioelectromagnetics. 1981;2:151–9.

Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushakov VD. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2000;48:2172–9.

Pakhomov AG, Akyel Y, Pakhomova ON, Stuck BE, Murphy MR. Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics. 1998;19:393–413.

Minasyan SM, Grigoryan GY, Saakyan SG, Akhumyan AA, Kalantaryan VP. Effects of the action of microwave-frequency electromagnetic radiation on the spike activity of neurons in the supraoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus in rats. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2007;37:175–80.

Pikov V, Arakaki X, Harrington M, Fraser SE, Siegel PH. Modulation of neuronal activity and plasma membrane properties with low-power millimeter waves in organotypic cortical slices. J Neural Eng. 2010;7:045003.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Munemori J, Ikeda T. Effects of low-level microwave radiation on the eye of the crayfish. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1982;20:84–8.

Munemori J, Ikeda T. Biological effects of X-band microwave radiation on the eye of the crayfish. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1984;22:263–7.

Pakhomov AG, Prol HK, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, Campbell CB. Frequency-specific effects of millimeter-wavelength electromagnetic radiation in isolated nerve. Electro Magnetobiol. 1997;16:43–57.

Pakhomov AG, Prol HK, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, Campbell CB. Search for frequency‐specific effects of millimeter‐wave radiation on isolated nerve function. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997;18:324–34.

Pakhomov AG, Prol HK, Mathur SP, Akyel Y, Campbell CB. Role of field intensity in the biological effectiveness of millimeter waves at a resonance frequency. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1997;43:27–33.

Pikov V, Siegel PH. Millimeter wave-induced changes in membrane properties of leech Retzius neurons. Photonic Therapeutics Diagnostics. 2011;7883:56–1.

Romanenko S, Siegel PH, Pikov V. Microdosimetry and physiological effects of millimeter wave irradiation in isolated neural ganglion preparation. IEEE 2013 International kharkov symposium on physics and engineering of microwaves, millimeter and submillimeter waves. IEEE. 2013;13:512–6.

Romanenko S, Siegel PH, Wagenaar DA, Pikov V. Effects of millimeter wave irradiation and equivalent thermal heating on the activity of individual neurons in the leech ganglion. J Neurophysiol. 2014;112:2423–31.

Beneduci A, Filippelli L, Cosentino K, Calabrese ML, Massa R, Chidichimo G. Microwave induced shift of the main phase transition in phosphatidylcholine membranes. Bioelectrochemistry. 2012;1:18–24.

Beneduci A, Cosentino K, Chidichimo G. Millimeter wave radiations affect membrane hydration in phosphatidylcholine vesicles. Materials. 2013;6:2701–12.

Beneduci A, Cosentino K, Romeo S, Massa R, Chidichimo G. Effect of millimetre waves on phosphatidylcholine membrane models: a non-thermal mechanism of interaction. Soft Matter. 2014;10:5559–67.

Geletyuk VI, Kazachenko VN, Chemeris NK, Fesenko EE. Dual effects of microwaves on single Ca2+-activated K+ channels in cultured kidney cells Vero. FEBS Lett. 1995;359:85–8.

Chen Q, Zeng QL, Lu DQ, Chiang H. Millimeter wave exposure reverses TPA suppression of gap junction intercellular communication in HaCaT human keratinocytes. Bioelectromagnetics. 2004;25:1–4.

Shckorbatov YG, Shakhbazov VG, Navrotskaya VV, Grabina VA, Sirenko SP, Fisun AI, et al. Application of intracellular microelectrophoresis to analysis of the influence of the low‐level microwave radiation on electrokinetic properties of nuclei in human epithelial cells. Electrophoresis. 2002;23:2074–9.

Zhadobov M, Sauleau R, Vié V, Himdi M, Le Coq L, Thouroude D. Interactions between 60-GHz millimeter waves and artificial biological membranes: dependence on radiation parameters. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2006;54:2534–42.

Deghoyan A, Heqimyan A, Nikoghosyan A, Dadasyan E, Ayrapetyan S. Cell bathing medium as a target for non thermal effect of millimeter waves. Electromag Biol Med. 2012;31:132–42.

D’Agostino S, Della Monica C, Palizzi E, Di Pietrantonio F, Benetti M, Cannatà D, et al. Extremely high frequency electromagnetic fields facilitate electrical signal propagation by increasing transmembrane potassium efflux in an artificial axon model. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9299.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ramundo-Orlando A, Longo G, Cappelli M, Girasole M, Tarricone L, Beneduci A, et al. The response of giant phospholipid vesicles to millimeter waves radiation. Biochem Biophys Acta. 2009;1788:1497–507.

Di Donato L, Cataldo M, Stano P, Massa R, Ramundo-Orlando A. Permeability changes of cationic liposomes loaded with carbonic anhydrase induced by millimeter waves radiation. Radiat Res. 2012;178:437–46.

Cosentino K, Beneduci A, Ramundo-Orlando A, Chidichimo G. The influence of millimeter waves on the physical properties of large and giant unilamellar vesicles. J Biol Phys. 2013;39:395–410.

Manikowska E, Luciani JM, Servantie B, Czerski P, Obrenovitch J, Stahl A. Effects of 9.4 GHz microwave exposure on meiosis in mice. Experientia. 1979;35:388–90.

Subbotina TI, Tereshkina OV, Khadartsev AA, Yashin AA. Effect of low-intensity extremely high frequency radiation on reproductive function in Wistar rats. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2006;142:189–90.

Volkova NA, Pavlovich EV, Gapon AA, Nikolov OT. Effects of millimeter-wave electromagnetic exposure on the morphology and function of human cryopreserved spermatozoa. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2014;157:574–6.

Kesari KK, Behari J. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2010;162:416–28.

Kumar S, Kesari KK, Behari J. Influence of microwave exposure on fertility of male rats. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1500–2.

Gapeyev AB, Safronova VG, Chemeris NK, Fesenko EE. Inhibition of the production of reactive oxygen species in mouse peritoneal neutrophils by millimeter wave radiation in the near and far field zones of the radiator. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1997;43:217–20.

Gapeyev AB, Yakushina VS, Chemeris NK, Fesenko EE. Modification of production of reactive oxygen species in mouse peritoneal neutrophils on exposure to low-intensity modulated millimeter wave radiation. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1998;46:267–72.

Safronova VG, Gabdoulkhakova AG, Santalov BF. Immunomodulating action of low intensity millimeter waves on primed neutrophils. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002;23:599–606.

Homenko A, Kapilevich B, Kornstein R, Firer MA. Effects of 100 GHz radiation on alkaline phosphatase activity and antigen–antibody interaction. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30:167–75.

Gapeyev AB, Kulagina TP, Aripovsky AV, Chemeris NK. The role of fatty acids in anti‐inflammatory effects of low‐intensity extremely high‐frequency electromagnetic radiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011;32:388–95.

Gapeyev AB, Kulagina TP, Aripovsky AV. Exposure of tumor-bearing mice to extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation modifies the composition of fatty acids in thymocytes and tumor tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013;89:602–10.

Gapeyev AB, Aripovsky AV, Kulagina TP. Modifying effects of low-intensity extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on content and composition of fatty acids in thymus of mice exposed to X-rays. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91:277–85.

Rotkovská D, Moc J, Kautská J, Bartonícková A, Keprtová J, Hofer M. Evaluation of the biological effects of police radar RAMER 7F. Environ Health Perspect. 1993;101:134–6.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Müller J, Hadeler KP, Müller V, Waldmann J, Landstorfer FM, Wisniewski R, et al. Influence of low power cm-/mm-microwaves on cardiovascular function. Int J Environ Health Res. 2004;14:331–41.

Webb SJ, Booth AD. Microwave absorption by normal and tumor cells. Science. 1971;1:72–4. 174

Stensaas LJ, Partlow LM, Bush LG, Iversen PL, Hill DW, Hagmann MJ, et al. Effects of millimeter‐wave radiation on monolayer cell cultures. II. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Bioelectromagnetics. 1981;2:141–50.

Bellossi A, Dubost G, Moulinoux JP, Himdi M, Ruelloux M, Rocher C. Biological effects of millimeter wave irradiation on mice-preliminary results. IEEE Trans Micro Theory Tech. 2000;48:2104–10.

Olchowik G, Maj JG. Inhibitory action of microwave radiation on gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase activity in liver of rats treated with hydrocortisone. Folia Histochemica Et Cytobiologica. 2000;38:189–91.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Khizhnyak EP, Ziskin MC. Temperature oscillations in liquid media caused by continuous (nonmodulated) millimeter wavelength electromagnetic irradiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17:223–9.

Sarapultseva EI, Igolkina JV, Tikhonov VN, Dubrova YE. The in vivo effects of low-intensity radiofrequency fields on the motor activity of protozoa. Int J Radiat Biol. 2014;90:262–7.

Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S. Effects upon health of occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am J Epidemiol. 1980;112:39–53.

Groves FD, Page WF, Gridley G, Lisimaque L, Stewart PA, Tarone RE, et al. Cancer in Korean war navy technicians: mortality survey after 40 years. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:810–8.

Degrave E, Autier P, Grivegnée AR, Zizi M. All-cause mortality among Belgian military radar operators: a 40-year controlled longitudinal study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20:677–81.

Degrave E, Meeusen B, Grivegnée AR, Boniol M, Autier P. Causes of death among Belgian professional military radar operators: a 37‐year retrospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:945–51.

Dabouis V, Arvers P, Debouzy JC, Sebbah C, Crouzier D, Perrin A. First epidemiological study on occupational radar exposure in the French Navy: a 26-year cohort study. Int J Environ Health Res. 2016;26:131–44.

Hayes RB, Brown LM, Pottern LM, Gomez M, Kardaun JW, Hoover RN, et al. Occupation and risk for testicular cancer: a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 1990;19:825–31.

Davis RL, Mostofi FK. Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand‐held radar. Am J Ind Med. 1993;24:231–3.

Hardell LE, Näsman A, Ohlson CG, Fredrikson MA. Case-control study on risk factors for testicular cancer. Int J Oncol. 1998;13:1299–602.

Baumgardt-Elms C, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Boikat U, Stang A, Jahn I, et al. Testicular cancer and electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the workplace: results of a population-based case–control study in Germany. Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:895–902.

Walschaerts M, Muller A, Auger J, Bujan L, Guérin JF, Lannou DL, et al. Environmental, occupational and familial risks for testicular cancer: a hospital‐based case‐control study. Int J Androl. 2007;30:222–9.

Grayson JK. Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status, and brain tumor risk in the US Air Force: a nested case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143:480–6.

Santana VS, Silva M, Loomis D. Brain neoplasms among naval military men. Int J Occup Environ health. 1999;5:88–94.

Holly EA, Aston DA, Ahn DK, Smith AH. Intraocular melanoma linked to occupations and chemical exposures. Epidemiology. 1996;1:55–61.

Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Bornfeld N, Jöckel KH. The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology. 2001;1:7–12.

La Vecchia CA, Negri E, D’avanzo BA, Franceschi S. Occupation and the risk of bladder cancer. Int J Epidemiol. 1990;19:264–8.

Finkelstein MM. Cancer incidence among Ontario police officers. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:157–62.

Fabbro-Peray P, Daures JP, Rossi JF. Environmental risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a population-based case–control study in Languedoc-Roussillon, France. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12:201–12.

Variani AS, Saboori S, Shahsavari S, Yari S, Zaroushani V. Effect of occupational exposure to radar radiation on cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac J cancer prev. 2019;20:3211–9.

Weyandt TB, Schrader SM, Turner TW, Simon SD. Semen analysis of military personnel associated with military duty assignments. Reprod Toxicol. 1996;10:521–8.

Hjollund NH, Bonde JP, Skotte J. Semen analysis of personnel operating military radar equipment. Reprod Toxicol. 1997;11:897

Schrader SM, Langford RE, Turner TW, Breitenstein MJ, Clark JC, Jenkins BL. Reproductive function in relation to duty assignments among military personnel. Reprod Toxicol. 1998;12:465–8.

Velez De La Calle JF, Rachou E, le Martelot MT, Ducot B, Multigner L, Thonneau PF. Male infertility risk factors in a French military population. Hum reprod. 2001;16:481–6.

Baste V, Riise T, Moen BE. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; male infertility and sex ratio of offspring. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23:369–77.

Møllerløkken OJ, Moen BE. Is fertility reduced among men exposed to radiofrequency fields in the Norwegian Navy? Bioelectromagnetics. 2008;29:345–52.

De Roos AJ, Teschke K, Savitz DA, Poole C, Grufferman S, Pollock BH, et al. Parental occupational exposures to electromagnetic fields and radiation and the incidence of neuroblastoma in offspring. Epidemiology. 2001;1:508–17.

Mageroy N, Mollerlokken OJ, Riise T, Koefoed V, Moen BE. A higher risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of personnel who served aboard a Norwegian missile torpedo boat. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:92–7.

Baste V, Moen BE, Oftedal G, Strand LA, Bjørge L, Mild KH. Pregnancy outcomes after paternal radiofrequency field exposure aboard fast patrol boats. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:431–8.

Beard JD, Kamel F. Military service, deployments, and exposures in relation to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis etiology and survival. Epidemiol Rev. 2015;37:55–70.

Garaj-Vrhovac V, Gajski G, Pažanin S, Šarolić A, Domijan AM, Flajs D, et al. Assessment of cytogenetic damage and oxidative stress in personnel occupationally exposed to the pulsed microwave radiation of marine radar equipment. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2011;214:59–65.

Mortazavi SM, Shahram TA, Dehghan N. Alterations of visual reaction time and short term memory in military radar personnel. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42:428.

Singh S, Mani KV, Kapoor N. Effect of occupational EMF exposure from radar at two different frequency bands on plasma melatonin and serotonin levels. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91:426–34.

Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology: epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112:1741–54.

Savitz DA. Exposure assessment strategies in epidemiological studies of health effects of electric and magnetic fields. Sci Total Environ. 1995;168:143–53.

J‐H Kim S, Ioannides SJ, Elwood JM. Trends in incidence of primary brain cancer in New Zealand, 1995 to 2010. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2015;39:148–52.

Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, Sanagou M, Tjong L, Croft RJ. Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e024489.

Download references

This work was supported by the Australian Government’s Electromagnetic Energy Program. This work was also partly supported by National Health and Medical Research Council grant no. 1042464. 

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Ken Karipidis, Rohan Mate, David Urban & Rick Tinker

School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

• Andrew Wood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken Karipidis .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interest

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Karipidis, K., Mate, R., Urban, D. et al. 5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 31 , 585–605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00297-6

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2020

Revised : 23 December 2020

Accepted : 21 January 2021

Published : 16 March 2021

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00297-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Epidemiology
• Health studies

This article is cited by

Effects of radiofrequency field from 5g communication on fecal microbiome and metabolome profiles in mice.

• Guiqiang Zhou
• Guirong Ding

Scientific Reports (2024)

What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment: a systematic map

• Ken Karipidis
• Chris Brzozek
• Andrew W Wood

Environmental Evidence (2023)

Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz” by Karipidis et al.

• Steven Weller
• Igor Belyaev

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (2023)

The implications of 5G technology on cardiothoracic surgical services in India

• Aditya Narsipur Doddamane
• Arkalgud Sampath Kumar

Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2023)

What evidence exists on the impact of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on animals and plants in the environment? A systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

March 29, 2018

New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer

Researchers call for greater caution, but skeptics say the evidence from rat studies is not convincing

By Charles Schmidt

Getty Images

Does cell phone radiation cause cancer? New studies show a correlation in lab rats, but the evidence may not resolve ongoing debates over causality or whether any effects arise in people.

The ionizing radiation given off by sources such as x-ray machines and the sun boosts cancer risk by shredding molecules in the body. But the non-ionizing radio-frequency (RF) radiation that cell phones and other wireless devices emit has just one known biological effect: an ability to heat tissue by exciting its molecules.

Still, evidence advanced by the studies shows prolonged exposure to even very low levels of RF radiation, perhaps by mechanisms other than heating that remain unknown, makes rats uniquely prone to a rare tumor called a schwannoma, which affects a type of neuron (or nerve cell) called a Schwann cell.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The studies are notable for their sizes. Researchers at the National Toxicology Program, a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, tested 3,000 rats and mice of both sexes for two years—the largest investigation of RF radiation and cancer in rodents ever undertaken in the U.S. European investigators at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy were similarly ambitious; in their recent study they investigated RF effects in nearly 2,500 rats from the fetal stage until death.

Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.

Taken together, the findings “confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects” in rats, some of them “relevant to carcinogenesis,” says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study. Samet, however, cautioned the jury is still out as to whether wireless technology is similarly risky to people. Indeed, heart schwannomas are exceedingly rare in humans; only a handful of cases have ever been documented in the medical literature.

When turned on, cell phones and other wireless devices emit RF radiation continually, even if they are not being actively used, because they are always communicating with cell towers. The dose intensity tails off with increasing distance from the body, and reaches a maximum when the devices are used next to the head during phone calls or in front of the body during texting or tweeting.

Launched at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s request 10 years ago, the NTP study dosed rats and mice of both sexes with RF radiation at either 1.5, 3 or 6 watts of radiation per kilogram of body weight, or W/kg. The lowest dose is about the same as the Federal Communications Commission’s limit for public exposure from cell phones, which is 1.6 watts W/kg. The animals were exposed nine hours a day for two years (about the average life span for a rat), and the exposures were cranked up steadily as the animals grew, so the absorbed doses per unit body weight remained constant over time.

Initially leaked in 2016 , results from that $25-million study provided the most compelling evidence yet that RF energy may be linked to cancer in lab rodents. The strongest finding connected RF with heart schwannomas in male rats, but the researchers also reported elevated rates of lymphoma as well as cancers affecting the prostate, skin, lung, liver and brain in the exposed animals. Rates for those cancers increased as the doses got higher but the evidence linking them with cell phone radiation specifically was weak by comparison, and the researchers could not rule out that they might have increased for reasons other than RF exposure. Paradoxically, the radiation-treated animals also lived longer than the nonexposed controls. The study results were reviewed by a panel of outside experts during a three-day meeting that ended on March 28. They concluded there was "clear evidence" linking RF radiation with heart schwannomas and "some evidence" linking it to gliomas of the brain. It is now up to the NTP to either accept or reject the reviewer's conclusions. A final report is expected within several months.

Limited to rats only, the Ramazzini study tested three doses expressed as the amount of radiation striking the animal’s bodies: either 5, 25 or 50 volts per meter. The exposure measures therefore differed from the absorbed doses calculated during the NTP study. But the Ramazzini scientists also converted their measures to W/kg, to show how the doses compared with RF limits for cell phones and cell towers set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; they ranged down to a 1,000 times lower. The exposures began when the rats were fetuses and continued for 19 hours a day until the animals died from natural causes.

As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators detected statistically elevated rates of heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose. They also had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer of glial cells in the brain, which were limited to females. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP toxicologist who designed the NTP study, says a measure of consistency between the two studies is important, because “reproducibility in science increases our confidence in the observed results.”

Just why Schwann and glial cells appear to be targets of cell phone radiation is not clear. David Carpenter, a physician who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y., explained the purpose of these cells is to insulate nerve fibers throughout the body. These are electrical systems, so that may be some sort of factor, he wrote in an e-mail. “But this is only speculation.”

A few epidemiology studies have reported higher rates of tumors inside the skull among people who use cell phones heavily for 10 years or more. Of particular concern are benign Schwann cell tumors called acoustic neuromas, which affect nerve cells connecting the inner ear with structures inside the brain. These growths can in some instances progress to malignant cancer with time. But other studies have found no evidence of acoustic neuromas or brain tumors in heavy cell phone users.

Samet adds a major challenge now would be to draw a biologically relevant connection between acoustic neuromas and other glial tumors in the brains of humans with Schwann tumors in rat hearts. “The mechanism is uncertain,” he says. “There’s a lot of information we still need to fill in.”

Since 2011 RF radiation has been classified as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Based on the new animal findings, and limited epidemiological evidence linking heavy and prolonged cell phone use with brain gliomas in humans, Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, says IARC should consider changing the RF radiation designation to a “probable” human carcinogen. Even if the hazard is low, billions of people are exposed, she says, alluding to the estimated number of wireless subscriptions worldwide. Véronique Terrasse, an IARC spokesperson, says a reevaluation may occur after the NTP delivers its final report.

Stephen Chanock, who directs the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, remains skeptical, however. Cancer monitoring by the institute and other organizations has yet to show increasing numbers of brain tumors in the general population, he says. Tracking of benign brain tumors, such as acoustic neuromas, was initiated in 2004 by investigators at the institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, which monitors and publishes statistics on cancer incidence rates. According to Chanock’s spokesperson, the acoustic neuroma data “haven’t accumulated to the point that we can say something meaningful about them.”

Asked if brain cancer’s long latency might explain why higher rates in the population have not appeared yet, Chanock says, “Cell phones have been around a long time. We are by no means dismissing the evidence, and the Ramazzini study raises interesting questions. But it has to be factored in with other reports, and this is still work in progress.”

Epidemiology studies investigating cell phone use patterns with human cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. Some studies enrolled people who already had tumors with suspected links to RF radiation, such as gliomas, acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors. Researchers compared the self-reported cell phone use habits of the cancer patients with those of other people who did not have the same diseases. Other studies enrolled people while they were still healthy, and then followed them over time to see if new cancer diagnoses tracked with how they used cell phones. All the epidemiology studies, however, have troubling limitations, including that enrolled subjects often do not report their cell phone use habits accurately on questionnaires.

In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study’s results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer—which by now amounts to hundreds of studies—has “given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. “We continue to agree with the FDA statement,” he says.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Radiation-Emitting Products
• Radiation-Emitting Products and Procedures
• Home, Business, and Entertainment Products
• Cell Phones

Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?

Some people are concerned that radio frequency energy from cell phones will cause cancer or other serious health hazards. Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC.

Key points:

• Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of non-ionizing radiation.
• The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than tissue heating.
• Public health data show no association between exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems.

Cell Phones and Radio Frequency Energy

Cell phones emit low levels of non-ionizing radiation when in use. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones is also referred to as radio frequency (RF) energy. As stated by the National Cancer Institute, "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating."

See Radio Frequency Energy and Cell Phones for the basics on radio frequency energy and non-ionizing radiation.

Scientific Consensus on Cell Phone Safety

Scientific studies: The FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of nearly 30 years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as cancer.

Public health data: The FDA also monitors and analyzes public health data on cancer rates in the U.S. population. The data clearly demonstrate no widespread rise in brain and other nervous system cancers in the last 30 years despite the enormous increase in cell phone use during this period. In fact, the rate of brain and other nervous system cancers diagnosed in United States has decreased for the last 15 years or so.

See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety for details on the scientific studies and public health data.

Determinations by other organizations: Many national and international organizations also monitor radio frequency research. This section highlights some of these agencies’ considerations.

• National Cancer Institute (NCI): Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Wireless Devices and Health Concerns
• World Health Organization (WHO): Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
• International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Mobile Phones
• Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission: Conclusions on Radio Frequency (RF) Fields
• Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), European Union: Final opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
• National Toxicology Program (NTP): Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation

See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety for more details.

Ad-free. Influence-free. Powered by consumers.

The payment for your account couldn't be processed or you've canceled your account with us.

We don’t recognize that sign in. Your username maybe be your email address. Passwords are 6-20 characters with at least one number and letter.

We still don’t recognize that sign in. Retrieve your username. Reset your password.

Forgot your username or password ?

Don’t have an account?

• Account Settings
• My Benefits
• My Products
• Donate Donate

Save products you love, products you own and much more!

Other Membership Benefits:

Suggested Searches

• Become a Member

Car Ratings & Reviews

2024 Top Picks

Car Buying & Pricing

Which Car Brands Make the Best Vehicles?

Tires, Maintenance & Repair

Car Reliability Guide

Key Topics & News

Listen to the Talking Cars Podcast

Home & Garden

Bed & Bath

Top Picks From CR

Best Mattresses

Lawn & Garden

TOP PICKS FROM CR

Best Lawn Mowers and Tractors

Home Improvement

Home Improvement Essential

Best Wood Stains

Home Safety & Security

HOME SAFETY

Best DIY Home Security Systems

REPAIR OR REPLACE?

What to Do With a Broken Appliance

Small Appliances

Best Small Kitchen Appliances

Laundry & Cleaning

Best Washing Machines

Heating, Cooling & Air

Most Reliable Central Air-Conditioning Systems

Electronics

Home Entertainment

FIND YOUR NEW TV

Home Office

Cheapest Printers for Ink Costs

Smartphones & Wearables

BEST SMARTPHONES

Find the Right Phone for You

Digital Security & Privacy

MEMBER BENEFIT

CR Security Planner

Take Action

Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?

As the debate over cell-phone radiation heats up, consumers deserve answers to whether there’s a cancer connection, sharing is nice.

We respect your privacy . All email addresses you provide will be used just for sending this story.

D oes radiation from cell phones cause brain cancer—or doesn’t it?

Researchers investigating that question have gone back and forth over the years, a game of scientific pingpong that has divided the medical community and cell-phone users into two camps: those who think we should stop worrying so much about cell-phone radiation, and others who think that there’s enough evidence to warrant some cautionary advice.

Most Americans fall squarely on the “don’t worry” side. In a recent nationally representative Consumer Reports survey of 1,000 adults, only 5 percent said they were very concerned about the radiation from cell phones, and less than half took steps to limit their exposure to it.

Many respected scientists join them. “We found no evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors or any other form of cancer” from cell-phone radiation, says John Boice Jr., Sc.D., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements and a professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. “The worry should instead be in talking or texting with your cell phone while driving .”

The U.S. government doesn’t seem very troubled, either. The Food and Drug Administration says on its website that research generally doesn’t link cell phones to any health problem. And although the Federal Communications Commission requires manufacturers to include information in user manuals about cell-phone handling, that’s often buried deep in the fine print.

But not everyone is unconcerned. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects.

“I think the overall evidence that wireless radiation might cause adverse health effects is now strong enough that it’s almost unjustifiable for government agencies and scientists not to be alerting the public to the potential hazards,” says David O. Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York and one of the authors of the recent letter to the U.N. and WHO.

Some countries have taken steps to protect users, at least when it comes to children. For example, France, Russia, the U.K., and Zambia have either banned ads that promote phones’ sale to or use by children, or issued cautions for use by children.

The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones. CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group, is now trying to block that law from going into effect, as it successfully did after San Francisco passed its own Right to Know law five years ago.

Of course, scientific seesawing like that doesn’t provide a lot of clarity or confidence for the 90 percent of American adults and roughly 80 percent of teens who report having a cell phone. So how concerned should you be about cell-phone radiation? Consumer Reports’ health and safety experts conducted a thorough review of the research and offer some guidance.

What Is Cell-Phone Radiation, Anyway?

Your phone sends radiofrequency, or RF, waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers, and receives RF waves to its antenna from cell towers when you make a call or text or use data. The frequency of a cell phone’s RF waves falls between those emitted by FM radios and those from microwave ovens , all of which are considered “non-ionizing” forms of radiation. That means that—unlike radiation from a nuclear explosion, a CT scan, or a standard X-ray —the radiation from your phone does not carry enough energy to directly break or alter your DNA, which is one way that cancer can occur. (FM radios and microwaves don’t raise alarms, in part because they aren’t held close to your head when in use and because microwave ovens have shielding that offers protection.)

How Could the Radiation From Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

At high power levels, RF waves can heat up water molecules (which is how microwave ovens work). Scientists used to focus their concerns on the possibility that such heating of human tissue, which is mostly water, might damage cells. In fact, the FCC’s test of cell-phone emissions—which was set in 1996 and which all phones must pass before being allowed on the market—is based on that effect.

But most experts now aren’t concerned about that possible tissue heating caused by RF waves. Instead, what’s worrying some scientists are newer lab studies suggesting that exposure to cell-phone radiation can have biological effects without raising temperature.

In 2011, researchers at the National Institutes of Health showed that low-level radiation from an activated cell phone held close to a human head could change the way certain brain cells functioned, even without raising body temperature. The study did not prove that the effect on brain cells was dangerous, only that radiation from cell phones could have a direct effect on human tissue.

RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., a special lecturer in the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and another signer of the recent letter to the WHO and U.N. “These proteins are used for protection,” Blank says. “The cell is saying that RF is bad for me and it has to do something about it.”

And just this year, a German study found that RF waves promoted the growth of brain tumors in mice, again at radiation levels supposedly too low to raise body temperature. The U.S. National Toxicology Program is now running an animal study of its own, exposing rats and mice to low-dose radiation. Results are expected in 2016.

What Do Cancer Studies in Human Populations Show?

The research above describes some lab and animal studies that looked at how cell-phone radiation might cause cancer or affect the body in other ways. But we also reviewed studies that investigated whether cell phones increased brain-cancer risk in humans.

We focused on five large population studies, plus follow-ups to those studies, that investigated that question. Together the studies included more than a million people worldwide, comparing cell-phone users with nonusers.

Though some findings were reassuring, others do raise concerns. Specifically, three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.

Though those findings are worrisome, none of the studies can prove a connection between cell phones and brain cancer, for several reasons. For one thing, cell-phone use in certain studies was self-reported, so it may not be accurate.

In addition, the findings might be influenced by the fact that the study subjects owned cell phones that were in some cases manufactured two decades ago. The way we use cell phones and the networks they’re operated on have also changed since then. Last, cancer can develop slowly over decades, yet the studies have analyzed data over only about a five- to 20-year span.

Are Today’s Phones Safer?

Cell-phone designs have changed a lot since the studies described above were completed. For example, the antennas—where most of the radiation from cell phones is emitted—are no longer located outside of phones near the top, closest to your brain when you talk, but are inside the phone, and they can be toward the bottom. As a result, the antenna may not be held against your head when you’re on the phone. That’s important because when it comes to cell-phone radiation, every milli­meter counts: The strength of exposure drops dramatically as the distance from your body increases.

Perhaps our best protection is that more people today use phones to text instead of talk, and headphones and earbuds are growing in popularity. On the other hand, it’s also true that we use cell phones much more than we used to, so our overall exposure may be greater.

So Should I Stop Using My Cell Phone?

No, Consumer Reports does not think that’s necessary. But we do have some concerns.

“The evidence so far doesn’t prove that cell phones cause cancer, and we definitely need more and better research,” says Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior scientist at Consumer Reports. “But we feel that the research does raise enough questions that taking some common-sense precautions when using your cell phone can make sense.” Specifically, CR recommends these steps:

• Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate.
• Text or video call when possible.
• When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset .
• Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.  

Worried about radiation from your cell phone?

Tell us how you try to avoid it—or why you don't bother.

A Call for Clarity

The substantial questions raised regarding cell phones deserve some clear answers:

• The Federal Communications Commission’s cell-phone radiation test is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults, though research suggests that children’s thinner skulls mean they may absorb more radiation.

• Consumer Reports agrees with concerns raised by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Government Accountability Office about the tests, and thinks that new tests should be developed that take into account the potential vulnerability of children.

• We think that cell-phone manufacturers should prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.

This article also appeared in the November 2015 issue of  Consumer Reports  magazine .

David Schipper

I’ve been a journalist for 14 years, the last 7 with Consumer Reports. When I’m not working to better the lives of our readers, you can often find me on a golf course, walking up the fairway with my 7-year-old son. 

Be the first to comment

UW researcher’s wake-up call on cellphone radiation is finally getting heard

Can radiation from cellphones damage DNA in our brains? When a UW researcher found disturbing data, funding became tight and one industry leader threatened legal action.

By Rob Harrill | March 2005 issue

• UW Magazine Facebook
• Jump To Comments

H enry Lai has a vivid recollection of his introduction to the politics of big science. It was 1994, and he had just received a message from the National Institutes of Health, which was funding work he was doing on the effects of microwave radiation, similar to that emitted by cellular phones, on the brain. He and UW colleague Narendra “N.P.” Singh had results indicating that the radiation could cause DNA damage in brain cells.

The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.

Someone had called the NIH to report that Lai was misusing his research funding by doing work not specified in the grant (the grant didn’t mention DNA). And the agency wanted to know what was going on.

“It really scared the hell out of me,” says Lai, a research professor in the UW’s Department of Bioengineering who earned his Ph.D. from the UW in 1977. “I was awake all night, worrying about it, wondering what to do.”

In the morning, he sent a fax to the agency, explaining how the research fell within the parameters of the grant. The NIH accepted his explanation and assured him that all was well. “They are usually fairly liberal in that regard,” Lai says. “To do otherwise would stifle the scientific process.”

The incident, he says, was only the beginning in a David-and-Goliath conflict pitting him — and other researchers — against an emerging technology that would rapidly become one of the most lucrative and powerful businesses on the planet: the cell phone industry.

UW Research Professor Henry Lai with a few of his laboratory rats. Photo by Kathy Sauber.

The controversy goes back to a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics . They found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered “safe” by government standards.

The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted. Such damage is worrisome because DNA carries the body’s genetic code and breaks, if not repaired properly, could lead to mutations and even cancer.

When the study was first published, a spokesperson from the cell phone industry said it was “not very relevant because they didn’t use the [same] cellular frequency or cellular power.”

True, responds Lai. But effects at one frequency could also happen at another frequency, and the exposure level in the experiment was actually lower than one can get from a cell phone. What it indicated was potential problems with the type of radiation the devices emit.

To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh’s findings.

“I don’t believe any of those studies have ever been replicated,” says Joe Farren, director of public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a Washington, D.C.-based industry consortium that provides $1 million a year in funding for cell phone research. “We believe you should follow the science. The science to date shows there is not a health risk associated with the use of any wireless device.”

Technically, Farren may be correct about Lai’s study, but that’s because no one has tried to replicate Lai and Singh’s exact experiment. And a 1998 experiment that used common cell phone frequencies did find biological damage in some cases. More recently, a European research effort by 12 groups in seven countries also documented DNA damage from cell phone radiation.

“ It’s all about science, politics and money, and not necessarily in that order. ”

Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News

While Lai is the first to say there are “no solid answers” to the controversy over cell phones and DNA damage, there is “cause for concern” and more work needs to be done. Instead, Lai says, he and his colleague have been the focus of a campaign to discredit their research. Consider:

• Internal documents from Motorola in the 1990s point to an organized plan to “war-game” Lai’s work.
• When a scientist in California published results that seemed to support Lai’s findings, he lost research funding and eventually left the field.
• At one point, the director of a group created to manage $25 million in industry-donated research money sent a memo to then-UW President Richard McCormick saying that Lai and Singh should be fired.
• Federal money for scientific investigation in the field has dried up, supplanted by funding from the industry-funding that Lai and others say can come with restrictions so oppressive they hamper scientific inquiry.

The stakes, both in terms of potential ramifications and profits, are high. According to consulting firm Deloitte & Touche, the global wireless market is expected to grow to two billion subscribers by the end of this year. An overall dollar figure for the industry would easily be in the hundreds of billions, according to Louis Slesin, who as editor of Microwave News has followed the ins and outs of research in the field of bioelectromagnetics for more than 20 years.

“It’s all about science, politics and money, and not necessarily in that order,” Slesin says. “Henry and N.P. had the courage to buck the system, and they have paid dearly for that.”

In preparing this article, some industry officials didn’t return phone calls asking about Lai’s work and the controversy surrounding it. Others said they didn’t have specific knowledge of the original study and the events it set into motion — it was more than 10 years ago — but they characterized such research as outside mainstream findings, which they say show that wireless technology is safe.

“ I’m just a simple scientist trying to do my research. ”

Still others maintain that possible hazards from recent studies could be discounted because those studies focus on older analog phones, which send out a steady wave of radiation. Newer digital phones operate at a lower intensity, sending out a pulsed stream.

A Swedish study published last fall that tracked 750 subjects who had used cell phones for at least 10 years made note of that difference, and included the following caveat:

“At the time the study was conducted, only analog mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years and therefore we cannot determine if the results are confined to the use of analog phones or if the results would be similar after long-term use of digital phones.”

But it would be a mistake to use that to support a stance that digital phones are proven safe, according to Slesin. The problem, he says, is that pulsed radiation is more likely than continuous wave radiation to have an effect on living things.

“There is a lot of work out there showing that digital signals are more biologically active,” Slesin says. “At this point, no one knows whether the enhanced biological activity might compensate for the weaker signals.”

Lai, a soft-spoken bespectacled man with an understated sense of humor — he once deadpanned to a national television reporter that the most difficult part of his research involved getting the rats to use tiny cell phones — still expresses surprise at being at the center of the ongoing, swirling debate.

“I’m just a simple scientist trying to do my research,” he says. He sees the path that led to controversy as marked by chance and serendipity.

A Hong Kong native, Lai earned his bachelor’s degree in physiology from McGill University in Montreal and came to the UW in 1972 to do graduate work. He earned his doctoral degree in psychology and did post-doc work in pharmacology with Akira Horita. His initial research involved the effects of alcohol on the brain. He also worked on a new compound to treat schizophrenia.

A shift came in 1979. Bill Guy, UW emeritus professor and a pioneer in the field of radio wave physics, offered Lai a chance to do research on microwaves through a grant from the Office of Naval Research.

According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai’s research might cause.

The pair first examined whether microwaves can affect drug interactions (they can), then if there appears to be an effect on learning (there does). Then, in the early ’90s, Singh arrived in Seattle. He approached Lai about joining his lab. “He was an expert on DNA damage,” Lai recalls. “I said, ‘Well, why not?’”

Singh is one of the world’s foremost experts on a DNA analysis called the “comet assay.” The assay gets its name from the appearance of a damaged cell. First, the cell is set in a gel and “lysed” or punctured. Then an electric current is run across the cell. When strands of DNA break, the broken pieces are charged. The electric current causes those pieces to migrate through the gel. As a result, a damaged cell takes on the appearance of a comet, with the bits of damaged DNA forming the tail. The longer the tail, the more damage has resulted.

With Singh’s expertise now at hand, Lai decided to look at how microwaves affect DNA. Lai and Singh compared rats exposed to a low dose of microwave radiation for two hours to a control group of rats that spent the same amount of time in the exposure device, but didn’t receive any radiation. The exposed rats showed about a 30 percent increase in single -strand breaks in brain cell DNA compared to the control group.

As Lai and Singh sought funding to conduct follow-up studies, word of the research began to get out. According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai’s research might cause. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had “war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue” and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai’s study and reassure the public. This was before the study was published in 1995.

A couple of years later, Lai got money from Wireless Technology Research (WTR), a group organized by CTIA to administer $25 million in industry research funding, to do some follow-up studies. But the conditions that came with the funding were restrictive. So much so that Lai and Singh wrote an open letter to Microwave News recounting their experience. The letter, published in 1999, cited irregularities in processes and procedures that the two called “highly suspicious.”

“In the 20 years or so that we have conducted experiments, for a variety of funding agencies, we have never encountered anything like this in the management of a scientific contract,” the two wrote.

Recent findings from overseas, more than 10 years after Lai’s work, seem to finally be providing support for a closer look at cell phone radiation.

WTR leader George Carlo responded with a six-page letter to then-UW President Richard McCormick, complaining of the “libelous” letter to Microwave News and “a pattern of slanderous conduct by these men over the past several years.” The letter closed with a threat of legal action and stated that Lai and Singh should be fired from the project. An answering letter from Vice Provost Steven Olswang stated that the University “encourages legitimate academic discourse” and would not intervene in the dispute.

While Lai and Singh were attempting to do their industry-funded follow-up study, the industry was looking for another opinion. Motorola approached Jerry Phillips, a researcher who worked in a lab at the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center in Loma Linda, Calif. He was investigating electromagnetic fields and their biological effects. The lab had done work with Motorola before, and Phillips was interested. He made a proposal and was funded.

He sent people to Seattle to learn how to do the comet assay. And he decided to expose the animals in his experiment to actual cell phone frequencies. What they found were increases in DNA damage at some levels of exposure and decreases at others.

“That’s not unusual,” Phillips says. “It happens with chemicals. One dose can do one thing, while a higher or lower dose does the opposite. In this case, if you produce a little bit of DNA damage, you are stimulating the repair mechanisms and you could actually see a net decrease because the repair will be done. However, if you overwhelm the repair mechanism, then you could see an increase.

“Based on the data, I told them that we need to start looking at repair mechanisms,” Phillips recalls.

Motorola disagreed. Phillips says he was told the results were not ready for publication, was encouraged to do more work, and was offered additional money to continue the experiment.

“I said as much as I would like the money, this part of the study is done,” he recalls. “I said it’s time to move on.” The study was published in Nov. 1998. Once the findings were released, Phillips’ source of funding dried up.

Since then, another group, working out of Washington University in St. Louis with industry funding, has tried to replicate the experiment, but without success. According to Lai and Phillips, that group is doing the study differently, including using a different technique to gauge DNA damage.

“They haven’t properly replicated the work that Henry did, or that I did,” Phillips says.

In the meantime, recent findings from overseas, more than 10 years after Lai’s work, seem to finally be providing support for a closer look at cell phone radiation.

“ Everyone uses the analogy of the tobacco industry and what happened there. It’s like letting the fox watch the henhouse. ”

Last fall, the journal Epidemiology published research results from a Swedish group that showed an increase in a rare type of non-cancerous brain tumor among cell phone users on the side of the head where the phone was most often held.

In December, a pan-European organization released results from an extensive four-year study carried out by 12 research groups in seven countries. Known as the REFLEX study, that research found significant increases in DNA damage in human and animal cells exposed to cell phone radiation in the laboratory. While not a cause for alarm, the results, which have yet to be published, underline the need for further study, scientists said.

A spokeswoman for the UK-based Mobile Operators Association called the results “preliminary,” adding that, “It is not possible to draw conclusions from this preliminary data.”

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, former chair of a British group that looked into the cell phone debate issued a report urging “a precautionary stance” while scientific data is gathered. This January he repeated that warning, adding that children should not use the devices for the time being.

Industry spokesman Farren says his organization sticks to its position. “Any official precautionary measures need to be based on the science,” he says. “The majority of studies have shown there are no health effects.”

It’s a point well taken, Lai says. However, what the science seems to say depends on how you quantify it.

Lai says there have been about 200 studies on the biological effects of cell-phone-related radiation. If you put all the ones that say there is a biological effect on one side and those that say there is no effect on the other, you’d have two piles roughly equal in size. The research splits about 50-50.

“That, in and of itself, is alarming,” Lai says. But it’s not the whole story. If you divide up the same 200 studies by who sponsored the research, the numbers change.

“When you look at the non-industry sponsored research, it’s about three to one — three out of every four papers shows an effect,” Lai says. “Then, if you look at the industry-funded research, it’s almost opposite — only one out of every four papers shows an effect.”

The problem, he adds, is that there is no longer funding available in the United States that isn’t attached to the industry. Lai, for one, refuses to take any more industry money.

“There are too many strings attached,” he maintains. “Everyone uses the analogy of the tobacco industry and what happened there. It’s like letting the fox watch the henhouse.” While the FDA administers cell phone radiation studies, the money comes from the industry, he adds.

Microwave News Editor Slesin says he has pondered why government funding isn’t available. His hypothesis is that it’s a matter of attitude.

“There is a view out there among many scientists that this is just impossible — the radiation is too weak and there cannot be any effects,” Slesin says. “We all know that ionizing radiation is bad. Ions are more reactive, there’s no doubt it can lead to cancer, it’s nasty stuff.”

The people who work with ionizing radiation see EMF radiation — that from electromagnetic fields — as a 97-pound weakling, he continues. They believe it’s not capable of doing anything.

“Yet, when you see effects like Henry reported, especially at the low power intensities, you have to ask what is going on to cause this?” he says. “As long as that attitude remains unchanged, you won’t get more funding and you don’t get anywhere.”

“ We are making some fundamental changes to the electromagnetic environment in which we live. ”

As a result, many U.S. scientists have moved on, either focusing on other areas or leaving the research arena altogether, relying on the rest of the world to pick up the slack. In Lai’s case, he is pursuing other research directions, where he can get funding. The most promising involves artemisinin, a derivative from the wormwood plant currently used to treat malaria. Lai’s research shows it has promise as a powerful anti-cancer agent. Late last year, the UW licensed the technology to a Chinese pharmaceutical company that plans to take it to human trials and, if successful, to market.

After what happened in Loma Linda, Phillips and his wife left research altogether. They now live in Colorado Springs, Colo., where he works for a company that develops science curricula. “I do have a lot of regret for those lost opportunities,” Phillips says. “We were really in a position to develop some good basic understandings of how radio frequency affects biological systems.”

It’s an issue that desperately needs to be explored, according to Slesin. Right now, a solid understanding doesn’t exist. If anyone says they absolutely have the answer, he cautions, absolutely don’t believe them. “We are swimming in uncertainty.”

And the issue becomes increasingly relevant with each passing day.

“We are making some fundamental changes to the electromagnetic environment in which we live,” Slesin continues. “Soon entire cities will be online so you can take your laptop anywhere and be on the Internet. What that means is we will all be exposed to electromagnetic radiation 24/7. I don’t know if there’s a problem, but I think we owe it to society to find out.”

In the meantime, Lai prefers to err on the side of caution. He doesn’t use a cell phone and requires that cell-savvy family members use headsets. He doesn’t see the problem as intractable, just one that needs serious attention. We engineered the technology, he says, and he’s confident that we can engineer our way out of any problems. But first, we need to take a close look at the data and admit that there may be a problem.

Either way, the answers will come, given time, Lai says. The question is will we get those answers in the way we want?

“We see effects, but we don’t know what the consequences are,” Lai says. “With so many people using cell phones, we will eventually know. The largest experiment in the history of the world is already under way. We will know, in about 10 or 15 years, maybe.”

Old medicine, new cure?

As funding for cellphone-related research has become increasingly scarce in this country, University of Washington Bioengineer Henry Lai has pursued other areas of interest. Chief among them is a foray into the ancient arts of Chinese folk medicine to find a promising potential treatment for cancer.

Lai and colleague Narendra Singh have exploited the chemical properties of a wormwood derivative called artemisinin to target cancer cells, with surprisingly effective results. Last fall, the UW TechTransfer Office signed a licensing agreement with a Chinese pharmaceutical company to develop a group of artemisinin-based compounds for possible use in humans.

The compounds are promising, officials say, but medical applications are still years away. Lai says he became interested in artemisinin about 10 years ago. The chemical isn’t new — wormwood was apparently used by the Chinese thousands of years ago to combat malaria.

The treatment became lost, but was rediscovered in the 1970s in an ancient record listing medical remedies. It’s now widely used to fight malaria in Asia and Africa.

The chemical helps control malaria because it reacts with the high iron concentrations found in the single-cell malaria parasite. When artemisinin comes into contact with iron, a chemical reaction ensues, spawning charged atoms that chemists call “free radicals.” The free radicals attack cell membranes and other molecules, breaking them apart and killing the single-cell parasite.

Lai began to wonder if the process might work with cancer, too. “Cancer cells need a lot of iron to replicate DNA when they divide,” Lai explains. “As a result, cancer cells have much higher iron concentrations than normal cells.”

Most recently, Lai and Singh looked at a method that involves the use of the protein transferrin, to which the researchers bound artemisinin at the molecular level. Transferrin is an iron-carrying protein found in blood, and it is transported into cells via transferrin receptors on the cell’s surface.

Iron-hungry cancer cells take in the transferrin without detecting the attached artemisinin. “We call it a Trojan horse because a cancer cell recognizes transferrin as a natural, harmless protein and picks up the tagged compound without knowing that a bomb — artemisinin — is hidden inside,” Lai says.

According to a study published in January in the journal Life Sciences , the compound is 34,000 times more effective in selecting and killing cancer cells than normal cells. Artemisinin alone is 100 times more effective.

“So we’ve greatly enhanced the selectivity,” Lai said.

Rob Harrill is the engineering writer in the UW's College of Engineering.

Be boundless

Connect with us:.

© 2024 University of Washington | Seattle, WA

Safety & Prevention

Cell phone radiation & children’s health: what parents need to know.

​Children are not just little adults; their growing minds and bodies make them uniquely vulnerable to the effects of the environment around them, including cell phone radiation. Because technology is being adopted by children at younger ages than ever before, it's even more important to investigate if cell phone usage is a health hazard.

What is cell phone radiation, anyway?

There are two types of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing. 

Ionizing radiation (e.g., x-rays, radon, sunlight) is high frequency (and high energy).

Non-ionizing is low frequency (low energy) radiation.

Cell phones have non-ionizing radiation. Your phone sends radio frequency waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers. When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone receives radio frequency waves to its antenna from cell towers.

What does the latest research say?  

Several studies have been done to find out if cell phone use can lead to cancer. These types of studies in people have not shown clear evidence of an increased cancer risk with cell phone use. While there was a slight increase in a type of brain tumor, called a glioma, in a small group of people who spent the most total time on cell phone calls in one study, other studies have not found this to be true. 

In May 2016, the US National Toxicology Program, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), released partial findings from a two-year  study  that exposed rats to the types of radio frequency radiation that cell phones give off and compared them with a non-exposed group. Some rats developed cancerous tumors after being exposed to the radiation—showing a potential connection between exposure to radiation and an increased risk of cancer.

A few words of caution about this study:

This study was only done on rats. While rats can be good test subjects for medical research, they are not the same as humans. We do not yet know if the same results would occur in people.

The rats were exposed to very large amounts of radiation—nine hours a day, seven days a week, for two years. This is far more than most people spend holding their cell phones.

More male rats developed cancerous tumors after being exposed to the radiation than female rats. Some of the rats who developed tumors lived longer than the control group rats that were not exposed to radiation.

The analysis of all of the data from this study is not yet complete.

Why is more research needed?

Parents should not panic over the latest research, but it can be used as a good reminder to limit both children's screen time  and exposure from cell phones and other devices emitting radiation from  electomagnetic fields (EMF) . Partial findings from studies like this one give scientists reason to look into the issue more. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children's health.

How can we limit cell phone radiation for ourselves and our children?

The AAP reinforces its existing recommendations on limiting cell phone use for children and teenagers. The AAP also reminds parents that cell phones are not toys, and are not recommended for infants and toddlers to play with.

Cell phone safety tips for families:

Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.

When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.

Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.

Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level.

Do not talk on the phone or text while driving . This increases the risk of automobile crashes.

Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.

If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.

Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It's better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.

Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases. 

Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items. 

Are there any regulations in place to limit cell phone radiation in the United States?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decides how much radiation cell phones are allowed to give off in the US. Currently, the FCC limit is at 1.6 W/Kg. The FCC, however, has not revised the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996, and a lot has changed since then.

There are now more cell phones in the United States than there are people.

The number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones has increased.

Cell phone and wireless technology have had huge changes over the years. For example, how many cell phone models have you had since 1996?

Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices' possible effect on large adults—not children. Children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation. ​

Where the AAP stands:

The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children's health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure. Providing parents with information about any potential risks arms them with the information they need to make informed decisions for their families. The AAP advocates for more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children’s health. ​

Additional Information & Resources:

Cell Phones: What's the Right Age to Start?

Parents of Young Children: Put Down Your Smartphones

Cell Phones (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)   

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet (National Cancer Institute)  ​

Karam named head of radiation oncology department

Sana D. Karam, MD, PhD, a renowned radiation oncologist widely known for cutting-edge cancer research that combines radiation therapy and immunotherapy to treat head and neck, and pancreatic tumors, has been named the James S. McDonnell Professor of Radiation Oncology and head of the  Department of Radiation Oncology  at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Her appointment begins Oct. 1.

Karam comes to WashU Medicine from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, where she is the Marsico Endowed Chair of Head and Neck Cancer Research and a professor and vice chair of translational research in the Department of Radiation Oncology.

A passionate clinician, Karam also is an innovative scientist. She holds three investigator-initiated R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and multiple industry-sponsored awards, is project leader of the Head and Neck Cancer SPORE at the University of Colorado and leads numerous investigator-initiated trials focused on advancing research from the laboratory bench to the bedside.

“Our leadership team was deeply impressed by Dr. Karam’s experience and accomplishments and unanimously endorsed her to shepherd the Department of Radiation Oncology from its current prestigious position into the new era of technology and scientific innovations revolutionizing the science and practice of radiation therapy,” said David H. Perlmutter, MD, executive vice chancellor for medical affairs, the George and Carol Bauer Dean of the School of Medicine, and the Spencer T. and Ann W. Olin Distinguished Professor. “Among her many accomplishments, Dr. Karam has led research that has challenged some long-standing paradigms in radiation therapy, and we are delighted she will be joining WashU Medicine to help push the field forward and lead the department in developing the next generation of cancer therapies.”

A native of Lebanon, Karam was the first in her family to attend college and also holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in nursing. Her research is focused on understanding how radiation therapy changes the immune microenvironment of tumors and how that knowledge can be harnessed to develop new therapies for hard-to-treat cancers of the pancreas and head and neck. She has shown that targeting key immune cell receptors with radiation can enhance the ability of T cells to attack and kill pancreatic cancer cells. Her research also suggests that the practice of irradiating lymph nodes near the tumor in head and neck cancers may dampen the anti-tumor immune response by reducing the activation of killer T cells. Based on this observation, immunotherapy may be more effective in head and neck cancers if radiation to the lymph nodes is reduced. Her work also has led to the translation of a combination of radiation therapy and immunotherapy from animal models to early clinical trials in patients with head and neck cancer.

In addition, Karam had led multiple studies on population health services that have resulted in initiatives focused on improving patient care. She also collaborates in clinical and preclinical research with several leading industry partners, including Roche, Genentech, Amgen, Tvardi and AstraZeneca. Karam is a co-inventor on two U.S. patents and three pending patents. She is also the principal investigator on an NIH-funded training grant in lung and head and neck cancer and leads her department’s diversity, equity and inclusion program.

“It is an immense honor to be selected to lead the Department of Radiation Oncology at Washington University School of Medicine,” Karam said. “I look forward to working with the dedicated and talented physicians, researchers and trainees at WashU Medicine to deliver innovative care to patients and carry out critical research to improve outcomes for patients in the future.”

Karam also excels in teaching and mentorship, including training many junior faculty members, resident physicians, postdoctoral fellows, doctoral students, undergraduate students and research technicians. She has been recognized for her work with trainees, including with the National Educator of the Year Award from the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology, in 2019.

Karam has an extensive educational background in science and medicine. She earned a bachelor of science degree in nursing from the American University of Beirut, where she later worked as a charge nurse in the coronary care unit. She continued her nursing training at the University of Maryland, where she earned a master’s degree in trauma and critical care nursing while also working at the multi-trauma intensive care unit at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center.

She earned her doctoral degree in 2001 in physiology and biophysics from the University of Washington. During her doctoral training, which focused on developmental neurobiology, she also worked as a nurse in the critical care unit of Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. Karam later completed a postdoctoral fellowship in oncology at Johns Hopkins University and then attended medical school. After earning her medical degree from Georgetown University in 2008, she pursued her internship in internal medicine at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C. For her residency in radiation oncology, she returned to Georgetown, where she served as chief resident from 2012-13.

In 2013, Karam joined the faculty of the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Colorado. She is the institutional principal investigator for multiple clinical trials and chairs many committees and task forces, including at NCI, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Head and Neck Society, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

She also has received the Bob Bast Translational Research Grant by the V Foundation, an honor for a research project that receives the highest rating by the organization’s scientific advisory committee.

Karam will succeed  Dennis Hallahan, MD , who has led the department for 15 years. Hallahan, the Elizabeth H. and James S. McDonnell III Distinguished Professor of Radiation Oncology, will continue leading his own research laboratory.

About Washington University School of Medicine

WashU Medicine  is a global leader in academic medicine, including biomedical research, patient care and educational programs with 2,900 faculty. Its National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding portfolio is the second largest among U.S. medical schools and has grown 56% in the last seven years. Together with institutional investment, WashU Medicine commits well over $1 billion annually to basic and clinical research innovation and training. Its faculty practice is consistently within the top five in the country, with more than 1,900 faculty physicians practicing at 130 locations and who are also the medical staffs of  Barnes-Jewish  and  St. Louis Children’s  hospitals of  BJC HealthCare . WashU Medicine has a storied history in MD/PhD training, recently dedicated $100 million to scholarships and curriculum renewal for its medical students, and is home to top-notch training programs in every medical subspecialty as well as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and audiology and communications sciences.

Originally published on the School of Medicine website

Comments and respectful dialogue are encouraged, but content will be moderated. Please, no personal attacks, obscenity or profanity, selling of commercial products, or endorsements of political candidates or positions. We reserve the right to remove any inappropriate comments. We also cannot address individual medical concerns or provide medical advice in this forum.

You Might Also Like

Latest from the Newsroom

Recent stories.

Dates for fall Workday Student transition activities set

Class of 2024: Committed to climate solutions

Class Acts: Kevin Corrigan

WashU Experts

DeFake tool protects voice recordings from cybercriminals

Tremor a reminder that East Coast, Midwest earthquake threat is real

NASPA chair, WashU vice chancellor on the future of student affairs

WashU in the News

TIME 100 health

Alzheimer’s drug adoption in US slowed by doctors’ skepticism

As bird flu spreads in the U.S., is it safe to eat eggs? What to know about the risk.

All the News That’s Fit: Achy-breaky hearts, cell phone FOMO and top addictions

This week in health news from scott lafee of the sanford burnham prebys research institute.

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

April 30, 2024

Dying from a broken heart

Between 2011 and 2018, the number of women hospitalized for heart attacks declined at a greater rate compared with men in a study of six high-income countries. However, in all six countries, women had higher mortality rates and were less likely to receive cardiac interventions, such as catheterization or treatment to restore blood flow to the heart.

The six countries were the U.S., Canada, England, the Netherlands, Israel and Taiwan.

Researchers said the higher mortality rates for women hospitalized for more severe heart attacks could be due to treatment delays or misdiagnosis, either because women present with different systems than men or doctors evaluate women differently from men.

Body of knowledge

The total daily consumption of your brain is 400 to 500 calories, or 20 percent of your total daily energy requirement. But while thinking long and hard may feel exhausting, studies suggest it doesn’t actually boost energy expenditure or calorie consumption. So much for thinking hard about dieting.

Saphenous vein — a superficial blood vessel that extends from the thigh to the calf; it can be removed and used as a coronary bypass graft.

Phobia of the week

Nomophobia — fear of being detached or apart from mobile phone connectivity

Best medicine

A guy goes to the doctor’s office and the doctor says, “I haven’t seen you for a while.”

The guy says, “I know, I’ve been sick.”

Observation

“If Shaw and Einstein couldn’t beat death, what chance have I got? Practically none.”

— Comedian Mel Brooks (1926-)

Medical history

This week in 1898, funds for the first cancer laboratory in the U.S. were appropriated in New York state.

Ig Nobel apprised

The Ig Nobel Prizes celebrate achievements that make people laugh, then think. A look at real science that’s hard to take seriously, and even harder to ignore.

In 2000, the Ig Nobel Prize in chemistry went to Donatella Marazziti, Alessandra Rossi and Giovanni B. Cassano of the University of Pisa in Italy and Hagop S. Akiskal at UC San Diego for their discovery that, biochemically, romantic love may be indistinguishable from having severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The five most common addictions in the U.S., according to the 2020 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey on Drug Abuse and Mental Health:

1. Alcohol: 10.2 percent (or 28.3 million) people age 12 or older reported struggling with an alcohol use disorder.

2. Nicotine: Among people age 12 or older, 8.5 percent (23.6 million) of Americans reported struggling with a nicotine addiction.

3. Marijuana: 5.1 percent (14.2 million) of Americans age 12 or older had marijuana use disorder.

4. Opioids: 1.1 percent (2.7 million) of Americans age 12 or older had an opioid use disorder.

5. Inhalants: 0.9 percent (2.4 million) Americans age 12 or older had an addiction to inhalants.

The rest of the top 10 addictions were cocaine, heroin, stimulants (such as Adderall or meth), benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax) and barbiturates (sleeping pills).

Fit to be tried

There are thousands of exercises and you’ve only got one body, but that doesn’t mean you can’t try them all. When we think about working out, our hands and fingers are left out — except for their use grabbing weights and the like.

Here’s a stretching exercise you can do at your work desk to relieve hand and finger strain caused by long periods of typing. It increases range of motion and relieves stiff joints.

1. Make a fist and hold it for 30 to 60 seconds.

2. Open your palm and spread your fingers wide.

3. Complete at least four repetitions with each hand.

Curtain calls

On January 28, 2018, Rajesh Maru, a 32-year-old worker at Nair Hospital in Mumbai, India, was killed when he carried a metal oxygen tank into a room housing an MRI scanner. The device’s powerful magnetic field pulled Maru and the tank into the machine, pinning his hand and releasing the liquid oxygen. Maru died of pneumothorax (collapsed lung) from inhaling the liquid oxygen.

LaFee is vice president of communications for the Sanford Burnham Prebys research institute.

Get Essential San Diego, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource

• What is SSRL?
• Director's Office
• Organization
• Strategic Plan
• Advisory Panels
• SSRL News and Events
• Science Highlights
• Press Releases
• SSRL Newsletter
• Photon Science Seminars
• SSRL Presents
• User Resources
• User Portal
• Forms & Applications
• SSRL Users Organization
• Beam Lines Map
• By Technique
• Photon Source Parameters
• SPEAR3 Status
• Science at SSRL
• Photon Science Faculty
• SSRL Imaging Group
• SSRL SMB Program
• Chemistry & Catalysis
• Publications & Reports
• SSRL Headline News
• SSRL Fact Sheet
• SLAC+Stanford
• SLAC Discovery Brochure
• SSRL Safety Guidelines
• SLAC Emergency Information
• SLAC ES&H
• SLAC Occupational Health Center
• Staff Resources

• SSRL Phone List
• People Search

SSRL Headline News - Vol. 24, No. 3 April 2024

From the Director

Severe winter weather contributed to loss of electrical power to SSRL/SPEAR3 on several occasions during our current FY 2024 run.  In mid-January, storm-related water intrusion into the housing of a large power transformer feeding the SPEAR3 booster complex catalyzed a multi-step failure of the transformer. In early February, severe winds during another atmospheric river storm caused the downing of many trees, including one that caused the loss of power to the SLAC site’s main 230 kV electrical line.  In early March, a brief but intense storm produced a power instability on the 230 kV line that caused our local power utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, to de-energize the line. 

There was no permanent damage to SSRL systems during these events, but they, unfortunately, resulted in lost beam time to our users.  These events point out the need for us to invest in back-up systems and hardening of the facility to mitigate what are likely to be increasingly frequent severe weather events in future years.  We received funds at the end of FY 2023 from the Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences to order replacements of key power transformers around SSRL.  These have been ordered and will be installed.  The recent increase in SSRL’s operating funds provides much-needed resources for maintenance and risk mitigation which we will use over the coming years to improve SSRL’s operational resilience.

Earlier this year, we reorganized the SSRL leadership team. Xiaobiao Huang now leads the Accelerator Division. James Safranek, who had previously led the Division, now leads the Accelerator Physics Department. Dan Harrington leads the Beam Line Systems Division as well as the Beam Line Development and Support Department. This change allows Tom Rabedeau to focus on SSRL’s future project portfolio, including plans for Major Item of Equipment project for new beam lines at SSRL.

– Paul McIntyre

SSRL SPEAR3 Celebrates 20 Years

SSRL utilizes x-rays produced by its accelerator, the Stanford Positron Electron Asymmetric Ring (SPEAR). This month we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the 2004 upgrade funded by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. SPEAR3 is a 3-GeV, high-brightness third generation storage ring operating with low emittance. SSRL runs with 500 mA in top-off mode, with the beam current kept constant by injection of electrons into the ring every five minutes. The intense beam of synchrotron radiation – ultraviolet and x-ray photons emitted by the circulating electron beams – are used for basic and applied research in diverse fields. SSRL celebrated with a lunch where Paul McIntyre acknowledged the milestone and Bob Hettel who was part of the original SPEAR3 team shared some memories of the people who made the upgrade possible.

SSRL Science Highlights

Nanoscale Chemical Imaging with Structured X-ray Illumination  – Contact: Yijin Liu (The University of Texas at Austin) 

High-resolution x-ray imaging can reveal chemical details in a number of fields including detection of metal contaminations in Si wafers; electrode dissolution and precipitation in lithium-ion batteries; and metal poisoning in catalytic materials for petroleum refinery – among others.  However, using existing methods to balance resolution, sensitivity, and speed simultaneously has been challenging.  A proposed new method integrates a full-field transmission x-ray microscope with an x-ray fluorescence detector to map at nanoscale without resorting to nanoscale x-ray focusing and raster scanning. This technique opens up opportunities across multiple fields by using x-rays to bridge the gap between structural and chemical characterizations.  Read more ...

Pinning the Geometrically-frustrated Flat Band to the Fermi Level with Electron Correlation – Contacts: Jianwei Huang and Ming Yi (Rice University); Makoto Hashimoto and Donghui Liu (SSRL)

Topological flat bands in quantum materials represent a fascinating subject in condensed matter physics, often associated with numerous exotic phenomena, including superconductivity, magnetism, and charge density wave order. Flat bands are commonly found in quantum materials where the Coulomb interactions are comparable or larger than the electron kinetic energy. Searching for flat bands in real materials and uncovering the related intriguing phenomena as well as the underlying microscopic mechanisms are collectively referred to as flat band physics.  Read more ...

Unique Novel Drug Shows Promise Against SARS-CoV-2  – Contacts: Long Mao and Can Jin (ACEA Therapeutics, Inc.)

Olgotrelvir (STI-1558) is a novel antiviral drug designed to address the challenges posed by the emergence of new, more infectious and virulent SARS-CoV-2 variants. This drug is particularly important for populations at risk who may not benefit from existing treatments like Paxlovid due to potential drug-drug interactions. Olgotrelvir exhibits strong antiviral activity against the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (M pro ), including its variants which showed resistance to Paxlovid. Furthermore, it inhibits human cathepsin L (CTSL), a host enzyme critical for viral entry through the endosomal pathway, thereby blocking both the entry and replication of the virus. Phase 1 clinical trials have demonstrated that oral administration of Olgotrelvir achieves effective plasma levels with limited mild adverse effects and a promising reduction in viral RNA load.  Read more ...

SSRL-Related Science

A Newly Published Protein Structure Helps Explain how Some Anti-cancer Immunotherapy Treatments Work Excerpt from Stanford News Article by Erin Ross

Some cancerous tumors hijack proteins that act as “brakes” on our immune system and use them to form a sort of shield against immune recognition. Immunotherapy treatments have been created that turn off these “brakes” and allow our body to attack foreign-looking cancer cells. To further advance such treatments, researchers at Stanford University, SSRL and New York University have recently published a new structure of one of these brake proteins, LAG-3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2310866121 . Their work contains key details of the molecule’s structure, as well as information about how the LAG-3 protein functions.

Jack Silberstein, a PhD student in immunology, co-led the work and colleagues, including Daniel Fernandez in Stanford’s Sarafan ChEM-H Macromolecular Structure Knowledge Center and Irimpan Mathews at SSRL began working on LAG-3’s structure in 2019.  The team used SSRL's macromolecular crystallography beamline 12-1 to collect the data that eventually led to determining the structure.  Read more ...

Awards and Recognition

Call for SSRL Award Nominations

Please take a few minutes to reflect on accomplishments over the past year and submit award nominations by the posted deadlines. Recipients of the Spicer and SSRL awards will be asked to present their research during the plenary session of the joint SSRL/LCLS Users’ Meeting, which will be held September 23-27, 2024. Send nomination packages to Cathy Knotts .

William E. and Diane M. Spicer Young Investigator Award – Submit Nominations by July 1:  The $1,000 Spicer Young Investigator Award honors the professional and personal contributions that William E. and Diane M. Spicer made to our community. Submit nomination packages including a letter summarizing the scientific contributions of the candidate as well as their CV and publications (supporting letters also encouraged).

SSRL Scientific Development Award – Submit Nominations by August 1: In 2024, SSRL will provide $1,000 for an award to recognize outstanding research accomplishments by new investigators and to promote dissemination of research results based on work performed at SSRL. Nominations for undergraduate or graduate students, or postdoctoral fellows within three years of receiving their Ph.D., can be submitted annually before August 1.

Farrel W. Lytle Award  – Submit Nominations by August 5 :  The $1,000 Lytle Award was established to promote technical or scientific accomplishments in synchrotron radiation-based science and to foster collaboration and efficient use of beam time at SSRL. SSRL users and staff are eligible to be nominated for the Lytle Award. Letters of nominations should include a summary of the individual's contributions and why they should be recognized through this award. Supporting letters are welcome.

Call for User Publications and Reminder to Acknowledge SSRL and Funding Agencies

To help us keep an up-to-date publications list please use our publications database search and submit form to see if your most recent SSRL-related publications are included and add any that are missing.

Publications are an important metric of productivity.  SSRL provides technical tools for user experiments with the requirement that scientists will report and properly acknowledge use of our facility and funding agencies in resulting publications.  Acknowledgement templates are provided on our website.

SSRL/LCLS Users' Meeting, September 23-27, 2024 — Save the Date

Our Annual Users' Meeting is a unique opportunity to gather together the light source community in a scientific event that includes numerous workshops, plenary presentations and poster sessions. An in-person event is planned this year.  Participants can learn about current/future facility capabilities and the latest user research and discuss science with colleagues from academia, research laboratories, and industry worldwide.

Register before May 15 for 18th Ultrafast X-ray Science Summer School (UXSS-2024)

UXSS-2024 will take place at SLAC June 17-10, 2024, and the registration deadline is approaching. Confirmed lecturers include Zhirong Huang, SLAC/ Stanford; Nora Berrah, University of Connecticut; Michael C. Thompson, University of California, Merced; Roseanne Sension, University of Michigan; Ludger Inhester, CFEL; Benjamin Ofori-Okai, SLAC; David Reis, SLAC/Stanford; and several scientists from the LCLS, SLAC.

A limited number of scholarships are available from the Stanford PULSE Institute. In order to compete for scholarships, students and postdocs are encouraged to write  A Paragraph to the Chair , as a part of the registration process.  The final deadline is May 15, but early submissions are encouraged.   See the UXSS-2024 website for registration and agenda. 

Announcements

Postdoctoral Opportunities at SSRL

SSRL scientists are looking for postdoctoral candidates for the positions listed at Careers at SLAC .

Upcoming Change to Training Requirement for SLAC Badge

Course 219R, the ESH Orientation Training Refresher, will be deactivated as the refresher for course 219 in the near future.  At that time Course 219, which includes new and updated content, must be taken on an annual basis to maintain site access.

Annual Waiver Needed for ARCAS Fitness Center at SLAC

To access the Arrillaga Recreation Center at SLAC (ARCAS), a liability waiver must be completed annually and given to the ARCAS front desk while membership services staff are on duty. The fitness center is located on the Eastern part of SLAC along the PEP Ring Road (next to the LCLS Building 901). ARCAS is generally staffed 6 am-7 pm Monday through Friday (depending on staff availability). Once the waiver is completed, staff and users with a valid SLAC ID can access ARCAS 4 am-12 am.

User Research Administration

Proposal Deadlines

• Xray / VUV - May 1, 2024 (for beam time eligibility beginning in fall 2024)
• Macromolecular Crystallography - July 1, 2024 (for beam time eligibility beginning in fall 2024)
• CryoEM biology-related proposals for the S 2 C 2 program are due on the first day of each month and are being reviewed on a monthly basis..

Submit SSRL and CryoEM time requests and proposals through the User Portal .

The Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) is a third-generation light source producing extremely bright x-rays for basic and applied research.  SSRL attracts and supports scientists from around the world who use its state-of-the-art capabilities to make discoveries that benefit society. SSRL, a U.S. DOE Office of Science national user facility, is a Directorate of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.  The SSRL Structural Molecular Biology Program is supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. For more information about SSRL science, operations and schedules, visit http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu .

To unsubscribe from SSRL Headlines, just send an e-mail to listserv@slac.stanford.edu with "signoff ssrl-headlines" in the body.

Questions? Comments? Contact Lisa Dunn

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA Operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science

• Privacy Statement
• Contact Site Owner