Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices
Anthony B. Miller1*, 
Margaret E. Sears2, 
L. Lloyd Morgan3, 
Devra L. Davis3, 
Lennart Hardell4, 
Mark Oremus5 and 
Colin L. Soskolne6,7- 1Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- 2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Prevent Cancer Now, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- 3Environmental Health Trust, Teton Village, WY, United States
- 4The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden
- 5School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
- 6School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
- 7Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Introduction
We live in a generation that relies heavily on
technology. Whether for personal use or work, wireless devices, such as
cell phones, are commonly used around the world, and exposure to
radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is widespread, including in public
spaces (1, 2).
In this review, we address the current scientific
evidence on health risks from exposure to RFR, which is in the
non-ionizing frequency range. We focus here on human health effects, but
also note evidence that RFR can cause physiological and/or
morphological effects on bees, plants and trees (3–5).
We recognize a diversity of opinions on the potential
adverse effects of RFR exposure from cell or mobile phones and other
wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) including cordless phones and
Wi-Fi. The paradigmatic approach in cancer epidemiology, which considers
the body of epidemiological, toxicological, and mechanistic/cellular
evidence when assessing causality, is applied.
Carcinogenicity
Since 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) has maintained that no evidence of adverse biological effects
of RFR exist, other than tissue heating at exposures above prescribed
thresholds (6).
In contrast, in 2011, an expert working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized RFR emitted by cell phones and other WTDs as a Group 2B (“possible”) human carcinogen (7).
Since the IARC categorization, analyses of the large
international Interphone study, a series of studies by the Hardell group
in Sweden, and the French CERENAT case-control studies, signal
increased risks of brain tumors, particularly with ipsilateral use (8).
The largest case-control studies on cell phone exposure and glioma and
acoustic neuroma demonstrated significantly elevated risks that tended
to increase with increasing latency, increasing cumulative duration of
use, ipsilateral phone use, and earlier age at first exposure (8).
Pooled analyses by the Hardell group that examined risk
of glioma and acoustic neuroma stratified by age at first exposure to
cell phones found the highest odds ratios among those first exposed
before age 20 years (9–11).
For glioma, first use of cell phones before age 20 years resulted in an
odds ratio (OR) of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–2.8). For
ipsilateral use, the OR was 2.3 (CI 1.3-4.2); contralateral use was 1.9
(CI 0.9-3.7). Use of cordless phone before age 20 yielded OR 2.3 (CI
1.4–3.9), ipsilateral OR 3.1 (CI 1.6–6.3) and contralateral use OR 1.5
(CI 0.6–3.8) (9).
Although Karipidis et al. (12) and Nilsson et al. (13)
found no evidence of an increased incidence of gliomas in recent years
in Australia and Sweden, respectively, Karipidis et al. (12) only reported on brain tumor data for ages 20–59 and Nilsson et al. (13)
failed to include data for high grade glioma. In contrast, others have
reported evidence that increases in specific types of brain tumors seen
in laboratory studies are occurring in Britain and the US:
•
The incidence of neuro-epithelial brain cancers has significantly
increased in all children, adolescent, and young adult age groupings
from birth to 24 years in the United States (14, 15).
• A sustained and statistically significant rise in glioblastoma multiforme across all ages has been described in the UK (16).
The incidence of several brain tumors are increasing at statistically significant rates, according to the 2010–2017 Central Brain Tumor Registry of the U.S. (CBTRUS) dataset (17).
•
There was a significant increase in incidence of radiographically
diagnosed tumors of the pituitary from 2006 to 2012 (APC = 7.3% [95% CI:
4.1%, 10.5%]), with no significant change in incidence from 2012 to
2015 (18).
• Meningioma rates have increased in all age groups from 15 through 85+ years.
• Nerve sheath tumor (Schwannoma) rates have increased in all age groups from age 20 through 84 years.
• Vestibular Schwannoma rates, as a percentage of nerve sheath tumors, have also increased from 58% in 2004 to 95% in 2010-2014.
Epidemiological evidence was subsequently reviewed and incorporated in a meta-analysis by Röösli et al. (19).
They concluded that overall, epidemiological evidence does not suggest
increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with mobile phone (MP) use,
although the authors admitted that some uncertainty remains regarding
long latency periods (>15 years), rare brain tumor subtypes, and MP
usage during childhood. Of concern is that these analyses included
cohort studies with poor exposure classification (20).
In epidemiological studies, recall bias can play a
substantial role in the attenuation of odds ratios toward the null
hypothesis. An analysis of data from one large multicenter case-control
study of RFR exposure, did not find that recall bias was an issue (21).
In another multi-country study it was found that young people can
recall phone use moderately well, with recall depending on the amount of
phone use and participants' characteristics (22).
With less rigorous querying of exposure, prospective cohort studies are
unfortunately vulnerable to exposure misclassification and imprecision
in identifying risk from rare events, to the point that negative results
from such studies are misleading (8, 23).
Another example of disparate results from studies of
different design focuses on prognosis for patients with gliomas,
depending upon cell phone use. A Swedish study on glioma found lower
survival in patients with glioblastoma associated with long term use of
wireless phones (24). Ollson et al. (25),
however, reported no indication of reduced survival among glioblastoma
patients in Denmark, Finland and Sweden with a history of mobile phone
use (ever regular use, time since start of regular use, cumulative call
time overall or in the last 12 months) relative to no or non-regular
use. Notably, Olsson et al. (25) differed from Carlberg and Hardell (24)
in that the study did not include use of cordless phones, used shorter
latency time and excluded patients older than 69 years. Furthermore, a
major shortcoming was that patients with the worst prognosis were
excluded, as in Finland inoperable cases were excluded, all of which
would bias the risk estimate toward unity.
In the interim, three large-scale toxicological (animal
carcinogenicity) studies support the human evidence, as do modeling,
cellular and DNA studies identifying vulnerable sub-groups of the
population.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) (National Toxicology Program (26, 27)
has reported significantly increased incidence of glioma and malignant
Schwannoma (mostly on the nerves on the heart, but also additional
organs) in large animal carcinogenicity studies with exposure to levels
of RFR that did not significantly heat tissue. Multiple organs (e.g.,
brain, heart) also had evidence of DNA damage. Although these findings
have been dismissed by the ICNIRP (28), one of the key originators of the NTP study has refuted the criticisms (29).
A study by Italy's Ramazzini Institute has evaluated
lifespan environmental exposure of rodents to RFR, as generated by 1.8
GHz GSM antennae of cell phone radio base stations. Although the
exposures were 60 to 6,000 times lower than those in the NTP study,
statistically significant increases in Schwannomas of the heart in male
rodents exposed to the highest dose, and Schwann-cell hyperplasia in the
heart in male and female rodents were observed (30).
A non-statistically significant increase in malignant glial tumors in
female rodents also was detected. These findings with far field exposure
to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study
on near field exposure. Both reported an increase in the incidence of
tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats, which
are tumors of the same histological type as those observed in some
epidemiological studies on cell phone users.
Further, in a 2015 animal carcinogenicity study, tumor
promotion by exposure of mice to RFR at levels below exposure limits for
humans was demonstrated (31). Co-carcinogenicity of RFR was also demonstrated by Soffritti and Giuliani (32)
who examined both power-line frequency magnetic fields as well as 1.8
GHz modulated RFR. They found that exposure to Sinusoidal-50 Hz Magnetic
Field (S-50 Hz MF) combined with acute exposure to gamma radiation or
to chronic administration of formaldehyde in drinking water induced a
significantly increased incidence of malignant tumors in male and female
Sprague Dawley rats. In the same report, preliminary results indicate
higher incidence of malignant Schwannoma of the heart after exposure to
RFR in male rats. Given the ubiquity of many of these co-carcinogens,
this provides further evidence to support the recommendation to reduce
the public's exposure to RFR to as low as is reasonably achievable.
Finally, a case series highlights potential cancer risk from cell phones carried close to the body. West et al. (33)
reported four “extraordinary” multifocal breast cancers that arose
directly under the antennae of the cell phones habitually carried within
the bra, on the sternal side of the breast (the opposite of the norm).
We note that case reports can point to major unrecognized hazards and
avenues for further investigation, although they do not usually provide
direct causal evidence.
In a study of four groups of men, of which one group did
not use mobile phones, it was found that DNA damage indicators in hair
follicle cells in the ear canal were higher in the RFR exposure groups
than in the control subjects. In addition, DNA damage increased with the
daily duration of exposure (34).
Many profess that RFR cannot be carcinogenic as it has
insufficient energy to cause direct DNA damage. In a review, Vijayalaxmi
and Prihoda (35)
found some studies suggested significantly increased damage in cells
exposed to RF energy compared to unexposed and/or sham-exposed control
cells, others did not. Unfortunately, however, in grading the evidence,
these authors failed to consider baseline DNA status or the fact that
genotoxicity has been poorly predicted using tissue culture studies (36). As well funding, a strong source of bias in this field of enquiry, was not considered (37).
Children and Reproduction
As a result of rapid growth rates and the greater
vulnerability of developing nervous systems, the long-term risks to
children from RFR exposure from cell phones and other WTDs are expected
to be greater than those to adults (38).
By analogy with other carcinogens, longer opportunities for exposure
due to earlier use of cell phones and other WTDs could be associated
with greater cancer risks in later life.
Modeling of energy absorption can be an indicator of
potential exposure to RFR. A study modeling the exposure of children
3–14 years of age to RFR has indicated that a cell phone held against
the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to roughly double
the radiation doses (including fluctuating electrical and magnetic
fields) per unit volume than in adults, and also that the marrow in the
young, thin skull absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose than in
the skull of an adult male (39). Thus, pediatric populations are among the most vulnerable to RFR exposure.
The increasing use of cell phones in children, which can be regarded as a form of addictive behavior (40), has been shown to be associated with emotional and behavioral disorders. Divan et al. (41)
studied 13,000 mothers and children and found that prenatal exposure to
cell phones was associated with behavioral problems and hyperactivity
in children. A subsequent Danish study of 24,499 children found a 23%
increased odds of emotional and behavioral difficulties at age 11 years
among children whose mothers reported any cell phone use at age 7 years,
compared to children whose mothers reported no use at age 7 years (42).
A cross-sectional study of 4,524 US children aged 8–11 years from 20
study sites indicated that shorter screen time and longer sleep periods
independently improved child cognition, with maximum benefits achieved
with low screen time and age-appropriate sleep times (43).
Similarly, a cohort study of Swiss adolescents suggested a potential
adverse effect of RFR on cognitive functions that involve brain regions
mostly exposed during mobile phone use (44). Sage and Burgio et al. (45) posit that epigenetic drivers and DNA damage underlie adverse effects of wireless devices on childhood development.
RFR exposure occurs in the context of other exposures,
both beneficial (e.g., nutrition) and adverse (e.g., toxicants or
stress). Two studies identified that RFR potentiated adverse effects of
lead on neurodevelopment, with higher maternal use of mobile phones
during pregnancy [1,198 mother-child pairs, (46)]
and Attention Deficit Hyper-activity Disorder (ADHD) with higher cell
phone use and higher blood lead levels, in 2,422 elementary school
children (47).
A study of Mobile Phone Base Station Tower settings
adjacent to school buildings has found that high exposure of male
students to RFR from these towers was associated with delayed fine and
gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in adolescent
students, compared with students who were exposed to low RFR (48).
A recent prospective cohort study showed a potential adverse effect of
RFR brain dose on adolescents' cognitive functions including spatial
memory that involve brain regions exposed during cell phone use (44).
In a review, Pall (49) concluded that various non-thermal microwave EMF exposures produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects. Both animal research (50–52) and human studies of brain imaging research (53–56) indicate potential roles of RFR in these outcomes.
Male fertility has been addressed in cross-sectional
studies in men. Associations between keeping cell phones in trouser
pockets and lower sperm quantity and quality have been reported (57). Both in vivo and in vitro
studies with human sperm confirm adverse effects of RFR on the
testicular proteome and other indicators of male reproductive health (57, 58), including infertility (59). Rago et al. (60)
found significantly altered sperm DNA fragmentation in subjects who use
mobile phones for more than 4 h/day and in particular those who place
the device in the trousers pocket. In a cohort study, Zhang et al. (61)
found that cell phone use may negatively affect sperm quality in men by
decreasing the semen volume, sperm concentration, or sperm count, thus
impairing male fertility. Gautam et al. (62)
studied the effect of 3G (1.8–2.5 GHz) mobile phone radiation on the
reproductive system of male Wistar rats. They found that exposure to
mobile phone radiation induces oxidative stress in the rats which may
lead to alteration in sperm parameters affecting their fertility.
Related Observations, Implications and Strengths of Current Evidence
An extensive review of numerous published studies
confirms non-thermally induced biological effects or damage (e.g.,
oxidative stress, damaged DNA, gene and protein expression, breakdown of
the blood-brain barrier) from exposure to RFR (63), as well as adverse (chronic) health effects from long-term exposure (64).
Biological effects of typical population exposures to RFR are largely
attributed to fluctuating electrical and magnetic fields (65–67).
Indeed, an increasing number of people have developed
constellations of symptoms attributed to exposure to RFR (e.g.,
headaches, fatigue, appetite loss, insomnia), a syndrome termed Microwave Sickness or Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS) (68–70).
Causal inference is supported by consistency between
epidemiological studies of the effects of RFR on induction of human
cancer, especially glioma and vestibular Schwannomas, and evidence from
animal studies (8).
The combined weight of the evidence linking RFR to public health risks
includes a broad array of findings: experimental biological evidence of
non-thermal effects of RFR; concordance of evidence regarding
carcinogenicity of RFR; human evidence of male reproductive damage;
human and animal evidence of developmental harms; and limited human and
animal evidence of potentiation of effects from chemical toxicants.
Thus, diverse, independent evidence of a potentially troubling and
escalating problem warrants policy intervention.
Challenges to Research, From Rapid Technological Advances
Advances in RFR-related technologies have been and
continue to be rapid. Changes in carrier frequencies and the growing
complexity of modulation technologies can quickly render “yesterdays”
technologies obsolete. This rapid obsolescence restricts the amount of
data on human RFR exposure to particular frequencies, modulations and
related health outcomes that can be collected during the lifespan of the
technology in question.
Epidemiological studies with adequate statistical power
must be based upon large numbers of participants with sufficient latency
and intensity of exposure to specific technologies. Therefore, a lack
of epidemiological evidence does not necessarily indicate an absence of
effect, but rather an inability to study an exposure for the length of
time necessary, with an adequate sample size and unexposed comparators,
to draw clear conclusions. For example, no case-control study has been
published on fourth generation (4G; 2–8 GHz) Long-term Evolution (LTE)
modulation, even though the modulation was introduced in 2010 and
achieved a 39% market share worldwide by 2018 (71).
With this absence of human evidence, governments must
require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of
indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to
determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior
to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate
short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and
vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents,
whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past
few years.
The Telecom industry's fifth generation (5G) wireless
service will require the placement of many times more small
antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because
solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave
RFR (72).
Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency
ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some
of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has
been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to
7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from
24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length,
these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands
in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being
deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming
antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is
not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G
and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under
continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles
and more (72).
Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several
densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or
environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being
followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated
with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older
technologies although its effects may be systemic (73, 74).
The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are
under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been
reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative
stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects
such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73),
acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints
indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized
biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the
need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.
Gaps in Applying Current Evidence
Current exposure limits are based on an assumption that
the only adverse health effect from RFR is heating from short-term
(acute), time-averaged exposures (75).
Unfortunately, in some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence
of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed (76).
Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at
daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing
exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health.
Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study,
should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are
inadequate.
Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not
yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups.
Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and
speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions
have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the
standard” (77)2.
Conversely, some authorities have taken specific actions to reduce exposure to their citizens (78), including testing and recalling phones that exceed current exposure limits.
While we do not know how risks to individuals from using
cell phones may be offset by the benefits to public health of being
able to summon timely health, fire and police emergency services, the
findings reported above underscore the importance of evaluating
potential adverse health effects from RFR exposure, and taking
pragmatic, practical actions to minimize exposure.
We propose the following considerations to address gaps in the current body of evidence:
•
As many claim that we should by now be seeing an increase in the
incidence of brain tumors if RFR causes them, ignoring the increases in
brain tumors summarized above, a detailed evaluation of age-specific,
location-specific trends in the incidence of gliomas in many countries
is warranted.
• Studies should be designed to yield the strongest evidence, most efficiently:
➢
Population-based case-control designs can be more statistically
powerful to determine relationships with rare outcomes such as glioma,
than cohort studies. Such studies should explore the relationship
between energy absorption (SAR3),
duration of exposure, and adverse outcomes, especially brain cancer,
cardiomyopathies and abnormal cardiac rythms, hematologic malignancies,
thyroid cancer.
➢
Cohort studies are inefficient in the study of rare outcomes with long
latencies, such as glioma, because of cost-considerations relating to
the follow-up required of very large cohorts needed for the study of
rare outcomes. In addition, without continual resource-consuming
follow-up at frequent intervals, it is not possible to ascertain ongoing
information about changing technologies, uses (e.g., phoning vs.
texting or accessing the Internet) and/or exposures.
➢
Cross-sectional studies comparing high-, medium-, and low-exposure
persons may yield hypothesis-generating information about a range of
outcomes relating to memory, vision, hearing, reaction-time, pain,
fertility, and sleep patterns.
•
Exposure assessment is poor in this field, with very little
fine-grained detail as to frequencies and modulations, doses and dose
rates, and peak exposures, particularly over the long-term. Solutions
such as wearable meters and phone apps have not yet been incorporated in
large-scale research.
• Systematic reviews on the topic could use existing databases of research reports, such as the one created by Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association (79) or EMF Portal (80), to facilitate literature searches.
•
Studies should be conducted to determine appropriate locations for
installation of antennae and other broadcasting systems; these studies
should include examination of biomarkers of inflammation, genotoxicity,
and other health indicators in persons who live at different radiuses
around these installations. This is difficult to study in the general
population because many people's greatest exposure arises from their
personal devices.
•
Further work should be undertaken to determine the distance that
wireless technology antennae should be kept away from humans to ensure
acceptable levels of safety, distinguishing among a broad range of
sources (e.g., from commercial transmitters to Bluetooth devices),
recognizing that exposures fall with the inverse of the square of the
distance (The inverse-square law specifies that intensity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance from the source of
radiation). The effective radiated power from cell towers needs to be
regularly measured and monitored.
Policy Recommendations Based on the Evidence to Date
At the time of writing, a total of 32 countries or governmental bodies within these countries4 have issued policies and health recommendations concerning exposure to RFR (78). Three U.S. states have issued advisories to limit exposure to RFR (81–83) and the Worcester Massachusetts Public Schools (84)
voted to post precautionary guidelines on Wi-Fi radiation on its
website. In France, Wi-Fi has been removed from pre-schools and ordered
to be shut off in elementary schools when not in use, and children aged
16 years or under are banned from bringing cell phones to school (85).
Because the national test agency found 9 out of 10 phones exceeded
permissible radiation limits, France is also recalling several million
phones.
We therefore recommend the following:
1.
Governmental and institutional support of data collection and analysis
to monitor potential links between RFR associated with wireless
technology and cancers, sperm, the heart, the nervous system, sleep,
vision and hearing, and effects on children.
2.
Further dissemination of information regarding potential health risk
information that is in wireless devices and manuals is necessary to
respect users' Right To Know. Cautionary statements and
protective measures should be posted on packaging and at points of sale.
Governments should follow the practice of France, Israel and Belgium
and mandate labeling, as for tobacco and alcohol.
3.
Regulations should require that any WTD that could be used or carried
directly against the skin (e.g., a cell phone) or in close proximity
(e.g., a device being used on the lap of a small child) be tested
appropriately as used, and that this information be prominently
displayed at point of sale, on packaging, and both on the exterior and
within the device.
4.
IARC should convene a new working group to update the categorization of
RFR, including current scientific findings that highlight, in
particular, risks to youngsters of subsequent cancers. We note that an
IARC Advisory Group has recently recommended that RFR should be
re-evaluated by the IARC Monographs program with high priority.
5.
The World Health Organization (WHO) should complete its long-standing
RFR systematic review project, using strong modern scientific methods.
National and regional public health authorities similarly need to update
their understanding and to provide adequate precautionary guidance for
the public to minimize potential health risks.
6.
Emerging human evidence is confirming animal evidence of developmental
problems with RFR exposure during pregnancy. RFR sources should be
avoided and distanced from expectant mothers, as recommended by
physicians and scientists (babysafeproject.org).
7. Other countries should follow France, limiting RFR exposure in children under 16 years of age.
8.
Cell towers should be distanced from homes, daycare centers, schools,
and places frequented by pregnant women, men who wish to father healthy
children, and the young.
Specific examples of how the health policy
recommendations above, invoking the Precautionary Principle, might be
practically applied to protect public health, are provided in the Annex.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that this manuscript was drafted in
the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest, although subsequent to
its preparation, DD became a consultant to legal counsel representing
persons with glioma attributed to radiation from cell phones.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ali
Siddiqui in drafting the Policy Recommendations, and those from members
of the Board of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy
(INEP) into previous iterations of this manuscript. We are grateful to
external reviewers for their thoughtful critiques that have served to
improve both accuracy and presentation.This manuscript was initially
developed by the authors as a draft of a Position Statement of INEP. The
opportunity was then provided to INEP's 23 member organizations to
endorse what the INEP Board had recommended, but 12 of those member
organizations elected not to vote. Of the 11 that did vote, three
endorsed the statement, two voted against it, and six abstained.
Ultimately, the Board voted to abandon its involvement with what it
determined to be a divisive topic. The authors then decided that, in the
public interest, the document should be published independent of INEP.
Footnotes
1. ^Per IEEE C95.1-1991, the radio-frequency radiation frequency range is from 3 kHz to 300 GHz and is non-ionizing.
2. ^The FCC adopted the IEEE C95.1 1991 standard in 1996.
3. ^When necessary, SAR values should be adjusted for age of child in W/kg.
4. ^Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, European
Environmental Agency, European Parliament, Finland, France, French
Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Italy, India, Ireland, Israel, Namibia, New
Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan,
Tanzania, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
References
11. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21: Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings, early actions? In: Late Lessons From Early Warnings, Part 2. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Denmark (2013). Available online at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-21/view (accessed August 25, 2018)
26. National Toxicology Program. NTP
Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in
Hsd:Sprague-Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency
Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used
by Cell Phones. NTP TR 595. (2018). Available online at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
27. National Toxicology Program. NTP
Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in
B6C3F1/N Mice Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a
Frequency (1800 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. NTP TR 596. (2018). Available online at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr596peerdraft.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
28. ICNIRP. ICNIRP Note on Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies. Munich (2018). Available online at: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf (accessed September 29, 2018).
29. Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology
Program study on cellphone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing
human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the
findings of adverse health effects. Environ Res. (2019) 168:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010
30. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, Lauriola M, De Angelis L, Gnudi F, et
al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in
Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to
mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base
station environmental emission. Environ Res. (2018) 165:496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037
63. BioInitiative Working Group. A Rationale for Biologically-Based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. BioInitiative. (2012) Available online at: https://www.bioinitiative.org/ (accessed August 25, 2018).
64. Belyaev I. Dependence of non–thermal biological effects of
microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications for
reproducibility and safety standards. In: Giuliani L, Soffritti M,
Editors. Non–Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter, Vol. 5. Bologna: Ramazzini Institute (2010). p. 187–218.
71. Anonymous. LTE Achieves 39% Market Share Worldwide. (2018). Available online at: http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/30603-lte-achieves (accessed September 29, 2018).
75. Federal Communication Commission. Radio Frequency Safety 13-39 Section 112. 37. First Report and Order March 29, 2013 (2013). Available online at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-39A1.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
77. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. (IEEE)IEEE c95.1
IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHZ to 300 GHz. (1991) Available
online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1626482/(accessed August 25, 2018).
78. Environmental Health Trust. Database of Worldwide Policies on Cell Phones, Wireless and Health (2018) Available online at: https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/ (accessed August 25, 2018).
80. EMF Portal of the RWTH Aachen University. (2018). Available online at: https://www.emf-portal.org/en (accessed October 10, 2018).
81. CDPH. CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones. (2017) Available online at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR17-086.aspx (accessed August 25, 2018).
82. Connecticut Department of Public Health. Cell Phones: Questions and Answers about Safety. (2017) Available online at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Departments-and-Agencies/DPH/dph/environmental_health/eoha/Toxicology_Risk_Assessment/050815CellPhonesFINALpdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 25, 2018).
83. Massachusetts, United States of America. Legislative Update on Bills on Wireless and Health. (2017) Available onlilne at: https://ehtrust.org/massachusetts-2017-bills-wireless-health/ (accessed August 25, 2018).
84. Worcester School Committee Precautionary Option on Radiofrequency Exposure. (2017). Available online at: http://wpsweb.com/sites/default/files/www/school_safety/radio_frequency.pdf (accessed August 25, 2018).
85. Samuel H. The Telegraph. France to Impose Total Ban on Mobile Phones in Schools. (2018). Available online at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/11/france-impose-total-ban-mobile-phones-schools/ (accessed August 25, 2018).
86. Moskowitz JM. Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance. (2014). Available online at: https://ehtrust.org/policy/the-berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know-ordinance and Available online at: https://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html (accessed September 29, 2018).
Annex: Examples of Actions for Reducing RFR Exposure
1.
Focus actions for reducing exposure to RFR on pregnant women, infants,
children and adolescents, as well as males who might wish to become
fathers.
2.
Reduce, as much as possible, the extent to which infants and young
children are exposed to RFR from Wi-Fi-enabled devices such as baby
monitors, wearable devices, cell phones, tablets, etc.
3.
Avoid placing cell towers and small cell antennae close to schools and
homes pending further research and revision of the existing exposure
limits. In schools, homes and the workplace, cable or optical fiber
connections to the Internet are preferred. Wi-Fi routers in schools and
daycares/kindergartens should be strongly discouraged and programs
instituted to provide Internet access via cable or fiber.
4.
Ensure that WTDs minimize radiation by transmitting only when
necessary, and as infrequently as is feasible. Examples include
transmitting only in response to a signal (e.g., accessing a router or
querying a device, a cordless phone handset being turned on, or voice or
motion activation). Prominent, visible power switches are needed to
ensure that WTDs can be easily turned on only when needed, and off when
not required (e.g., Wi-Fi when sleeping).
5.
Lower permitted power densities in close proximity to fixed-site
antennae, from “occupational” limits to exposure limits for the general
public.
6.
Update current exposure limits to be protective against the non-thermal
effects of RFR. Such action should be taken by all heath ministries and
public health agencies, as well as industry regulatory bodies. Exposure
limits should be based on measurements of RFR levels related to
biological effects (2).
7.
Ensure that advisories relating to cell phone use are placed in such a
way that purchasers can find them easily, similar to the Berkeley Cell
Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance (86).
8.
Advise the public that texting and speaker mode are preferable to
holding cell phones to the ear. Alternatively, use hands-free
accessories for cell phones, including air tube headsets that interrupt
the transmission of RFR.
9.
When possible, keep cell phones away from the body (e.g., on a nearby
desk, in a purse or bag, or on a mounted hands-free accessory in motor
vehicles).
10.
Delay the widespread implementation of 5G (and any other new
technology) until studies can be conducted to assess safety. This
includes a wide range of household and community-wide infrastructure
WTDs and self-driving vehicles, as well as the building of 5G minicells.
11.
Fiber-optic connections for the Internet should be made available to
every home, office, school, warehouse and factory, when and where
possible.
Glossary
Citation: Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M and Soskolne CL (2019) Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
Received: 10 April 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019;
Published: 13 August 2019.
Published: 13 August 2019.
Edited by:
Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dariusz Leszczynski, University of Helsinki, Finland
Reviewed by:
Lorenzo Manti, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Sareesh Naduvil Narayanan, Ras al-Khaimah Medical and Health Sciences University, United Arab Emirates
Copyright © 2019 Miller, Sears, Morgan, Davis, Hardell,
Oremus and Soskolne. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.Lorenzo Manti, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Sareesh Naduvil Narayanan, Ras al-Khaimah Medical and Health Sciences University, United Arab Emirates
*Correspondence: Anthony B. Miller, ab.miller@utoronto.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment