Business People hangout together at coffee shop

Digital and wireless devices have provided many benefits, however, we are now realizing that the rapid adoption of this novel technology has not been accompanied by adequate regulation, monitoring or safety precautions.

Widespread use of digital media and near constant exposure to wireless devices has caused increasing concern among scientists, health care professionals, psychologists, educators and the public who are now considering this is not only a public health issue but a looming public health crisis. (11,108) It appears that we are at the same point of emerging science similar to early recognition of health impacts associated with tobacco, asbestos, coal dust and lead. (119) These concerns are amplified by industry proposals for a massive expansion of wireless infrastructure and connectivity.

Through both science and observation, we are learning that there are significant adverse health, psychosocial, environmental, privacy and security issues associated with the use of this modern technology. This raises many challenges and questions for physicians and other health care professionals, patients and our society regarding the development and use of this technology. To date digital technology has not been addressed in the U.S. from a public health, individual health or environmental perspective.

The abundance of peer reviewed science showing harm coupled with obsolete radiofrequency safety guidelines that fail to address long term health effects and non-thermal biological effects indicate that a precautionary approach is essential to reduce potential harm to the public and the environment. (11, 14, 20) Relevant factors which are also not considered in exposure standards include critical windows of development, genetic variability/predisposition, age, individual health status, combined toxic exposures and simultaneous exposure to multiple frequencies.  Several countries and cities around the world have recently adopted policies which reduce exposure, limit advertising of digital devices to children and increase transparency regarding measurements of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and documented health effects. (119)

This website was created to highlight relevant research and help physicians understand how the use of digital technology can cause or contribute to a wide variety of health effects, both mental and physical. Physicians are encouraged to incorporate this evidence-based knowledge in their discussions with patients, and to advise a precautionary approach to improve health and well-being.

 The Environment Affects Our Health

 Human bodies are a complex arrangement of cells that are guided by fragile biologic and electric signaling. The nervous system, heart and intricate cellular processes use an interplay of both molecular and minute electrical charges which control and direct precise responses to internal and external stimuli, thus influencing function and development. Our environment can interfere with and adversely affect these biological processes and thus our health.

Public health experts and scientists are now aware of how environmental factors, such as nutrition, exercise and stress influence our cell biology, aging and long term health.  The idea, however, of acquiring a chronic illness from constant exposure to multiple toxins even at low levels, is slow to be accepted as a mainstream concept in the larger medical community. We are well aware of the hazards of smoking, asbestos and lead, however, we now are exposed to thousands of chemicals in consumer products along with widespread environmental contamination from manufacturing processes. Long term exposure to these low level chemical mixtures are not routinely addressed by physicians.

Another environmental factor we are routinely exposed to, that is also overlooked and even less understood by physicians is the adverse health and biological effects of wireless devices that emit non-ionizing radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR).  EMR can have toxic effects that occur on a cellular level.

The discovery of electricity in the 1700’s brought with it abundant observation of the beneficial and harmful nervous system effects of electricity, even in low power. (151)  In 1753, Abbey Nollet  was the first to document biological effects from exposure to a DC electric field, including nervousness, headaches, nosebleeds and heart palpitations in individuals. (150)  Modern scientific research has added to much to our understanding of health impacts of electromagnetic radiation, highlighting individual variation and vulnerability.  Despite that, physicians today are fundamentally focused on the chemical and not the electrical aspects of biological processes and accompanying health interactions of our modern wireless technologies.

Health Effects of Wireless Devices and Digital Technology

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) emitted by common wireless devices that we are exposed to, such as cell phones, laptops, tablets, DECT cordless phones, wireless routers and smart meters, has been well demonstrated in the literature to have non-thermal toxic effects on our cell biology, even when used on lower power settings. (14)

The increasing use of wireless devices and computers has spawned an abundance of research revealing a variety of health concerns including cancer, neurodevelopmental harm, neurodegeneration and reproductive abnormalities.

Studies indicate that radiofrequency EMR has broad effects on the body and negatively affects sperm, ovaries, liver, kidneys, the immune system, melatonin production, DNA, protein synthesis, the blood brain barrier, and nerve cell viability and function. (11)

Prenatal developmental effects are especially worrisome as they can be heritable. The damage to cells is cumulative and increases with longer exposure. Commercial use of wireless devices began in the late 1990’s and because of long latency periods between exposure and diseases such as brain cancer, the full negative effects on public health may not be realized for many years with exposure. (121)

In addition, a condition called electrosensitivity (ES) is emerging in the population. People with ES develop symptoms of insomnia, headaches fatigue and impairment of concentration with near exposure to wireless devices, smart meters and cell towers. (see below)

The use of digital technology comes with a host of other related health issues which are now becoming obvious to physicians, such as, technology addiction, psychosocial impairment, computer vision syndrome, ergonomic back strain, repetitive strain and obesity.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of EMR

It is both interesting and ironic that non-ionizing radiation is now being used in some areas of medicine as a short-term therapeutic agent and in combination with other treatments to address a number of conditions from cancer to pain management. (16) The literature does indicate that non-ionizing radiation has biological effects that can have either beneficial or harmful  effects depending on the frequency of the wavelength, mix of carrier waveforms, distance from the organism, length of exposure, timing of exposure and if the waveforms are static or pulsating. (81) An excellent review book chapter underscores that the beneficial effects are usually seen with short term exposure and the adverse effects tend to be seen with long term exposure. (16) This indicates that these EMR treatments while beneficial in the short term, are not necessarily safe for long term use.

Exposure Guidelines Are Based Only on Heat Damage to Cells

Current U.S. exposure guidelines to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) are an engineering standard based only on thermal (heat) effects. These guidelines do not consider the significant body of research demonstrating biological harm with non-thermal low-level EMR exposure which are identified at and below current safety standards. (14) We have thus, a heat standard without a more relevant biological standard of safety, which if taken into consideration would indicate a much lower exposure should be applied to current guidelines. (11)

How Can Non-Ionizing Radiation Be Harmful?

 The electromagnetic spectrum is roughly divided into ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. We know that ionizing radiation is high energy and can cause direct harm by removing electrons from atoms with resultant direct DNA damage to nucleotides resulting in fixed mutations. It also produces free radical molecules which cause widespread indirect injury to cell structures via oxidation of tissues and cell death. (122, 128)

However, for decades scientists thought ionizing radiation from x-rays was safe enough to treat acne and measure shoe size. There was no temperature change on the feet or burns to guide safety and kids would spend long afternoons in the shoe store wiggling their green feet in the shoe slots. Until atomic bomb survivors showed long term health effects no one questioned the safety of these widespread devices. Even though recommended safety guidelines were in place decades earlier, shoe fluoroscopes were not banned in the U.S. until the 1970’s. (111, 112) What seems like a great discovery at one point in time can later be deemed hazardous many years later. (27, 28, 121) Science can change our views and policies.

It has long been believed that non-ionizing radiation could not be harmful to living organisms as it did not break chemical bonds. It was only felt to be damaging if it heated tissue. We are now learning that microwave radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices acts as an environmental stressor with direct toxic effects on cellular processes that are not related to heat or to ionization. The effect of radiofrequency EMR is indirect, inducing biochemical changes in cellular structures and their membranes. (49,50,78)

Although some physicists deny this could be the case, this biologically toxic effect from electromagnetic radiation has been demonstrated in many research investigations and is similar to effects from other chemical exposures.

In May 2011 the WHO/ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed  radio frequency electromagnetic radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries made the decision after reviewing scientific data on non-ionizing microwave radiation and its association with brain tumors. (30)

Biochemical Mechanisms of Harm from Microwave Radiofrequency EMR

At least one underlying biochemical mechanism of toxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) has been observed to be in many instances similar to common toxins such as pesticides, industrial chemicals and heavy metals. Effects include oxidative damage, altered intracellular signaling, membrane effects, direct effects on proteins, and free radical production. (11, 73, 74, 88, 89, 100)

Oxidation-Disruptions of normal cellular processes are caused by the overproduction of reactive oxygen species, causing oxidation of biomolecules leading to DNA damage, mitochondrial disruption, altered differentiation and proliferation. This is well known to contribute to a number of pathologic diseases such as cancer, neurologic harm, metabolic harm and reproductive harm (80, 114, 115). Measurements of reactive oxygen species in different tissues are now used in biomedical research as a biomarker for inflammation, toxic exposure and disease. (17, 70, 71, 116, 117, 118)

Voltage Gated Calcium Channels- Experimental evidence in basic science research supports a plausible biochemical mechanism of EMR effects to be related to alterations of cellular voltage gated calcium channels and cellular nitrous oxide production. (81-84) All cells in living organisms have an electrical voltage across their membrane which is generated by unequal distributions of ions such as potassium (K), Sodium (Na) , Chloride (Cl) and Calcium (Ca). An active transport system for each keeps the cell membrane in electrochemical balance. Miniscule electric fields can alter this balance and thus biological processes. (85)

Calcium-The Ultimate Signaling Molecule-Studies show electromagnetic exposure has biological effects on critical cellular calcium channels. (81-85) Calcium has been called the “ultimate signaling molecule for organisms … [and]…mediates processes as diverse as synaptic transmission, muscle contraction, insulin secretion, fertilization, and gene expression”. (93)  These cellular alterations on calcium channels could have significant effects on diverse physiological and developmental events without breaking any chemical bonds. (84, 86, 93-96)

DNA Damage by Ionizing Radiation-Ionizing radiation is known to cause direct double stranded DNA breaks and this is an established mechanism for chromosomal damage. (110, 121,129, 130 ) It is also known that late post-radiation effects from ionizing radiation are due to an indirect mechanism, reactive oxygen species (ROS),  that cause mitochondrial DNA damage that can be heritable when mitochondria replicate. (134) ROS cause epigenetic changes, in one mechanism, through an alteration of enzymes known as methyltransferases which control nuclear DNA and thus the central control mechanism of the cell

DNA Damage by Radiofrequency Non-ionizing radiation-Research has demonstrated that low intensity long term exposure to non-ionizing microwave radiation can cause single strand breaks as well as double strand DNA breaks through an indirect mechanism. Lai and Singh in 1995 were one of the first to identify single-strand breaks in rat brain cells with low-intensity microwave radiation. (136)  A year later they published further research showing not only single but also more damaging double-stranded DNA breaks with low intensity RF EMR. (137) The following year they repeated the studies but added a group of rats given melatonin, a potent free radical scavenger, before and after RF exposure. They found that melatonin blocked the adverse effects of the microwave radiation.  (138) These results are especially meaningful as Dr. Lai and his group produced important research developing an industry standard variation of the comet assay which is still used today to test for qualitative and quantitative DNA damage to cells. (139, 140, 141) His work was confirmed by Paulrai and Behari in 2006. (142) Ghandi in 2005 looked at the blood lymphocytes of 24 cell phone users who used their phones for a variable time frame of 1.5 to 9 hours a day. He found a direct dose response curve of chromosomal aberrations and length of exposure to cell phone frequency microwave radiation.  (143)
The BioInitiative Report, the Reflex Project in Europe and others have compiled a myriad of studies which demonstrate genetic damage from non-thermal radiofrequency radiation exposure. (11, 145, 146)

Epigenetics:  Indirect Alteration of DNA Functions

The science of epigenetics is a popular topic among scientists and physicians alike. Research is extensive in this field and crosses many disciplines.  Epigenetics investigates inherited and non-inherited changes in gene expression that occur without a change in DNA nucleotide sequencing. Epigenetic mechanisms include changes in cell nuclear structures that broadly affect cell regulation. These include DNA methylation, histone modifications, and microRNA (miRNA) expression.

Methylation (adding a CH3 molecule) of DNA nucleotides is a frequently used epigenetic signaling tool used to turn genes in the “off” position. This is done by DNA methyltransferases which are pivotal to normal development and healthy cell functioning. Disruption of this system can lead to human disease. Researchers are investigating methylation defects and congenital abnormalities as well as cancer promotion whereby tumor suppression genes are shut off by environmental factors.  (133-135) Micro RNA consists of non-coded RNA with about 20 nucleotides which function to regulate gene expression, controlling diverse cellular and metabolic pathways,  including acting as a gene silencing mechanism. (149)

Toxins cause epigenetic changes. A variety of environmental toxicants are known to cause detrimental epigenetic changes. These include alcohol, asbestos, benzene, endocrine disruptors, nanomaterials, metals and ionizing radiation. This constitutes another indirect mechanism whereby toxicants can cause a heritable change in DNA that can alter function. (123-128)

Non- ionizing radiation causes epigenetic changes. Recent studies are now indicating that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and wireless devices can, like other toxic exposures, cause deleterious epigenetic DNA changes. (38) The RF radiation can alter DNA methylation which functions to down-regulate gene expression.  Micro-RNA alterations also can occur. (147,148) Both epigenetic changes are presumably due to the actions of reactive oxygen species created by radiofrequency radiation. Wireless devices thus can cause permanent changes in the DNA with biological dysfunction without breaking DNA bonds. This research underscores a paradigm shift in our thinking and highlights even more the silent threats of increasing microwave radiation especially to children and the developing fetus.

Synergistic and Co-Carcinogenic Effects

 Another concerning aspect of RF radiation is that the combination of low doses of hazardous chemicals along with RF radiation exposures could result in greater harm than either one alone.  (29, 16) Just as studies show an increased risk of cancer or other illnesses from multiple simultaneous toxic exposures there is growing research showing that EMR from wireless devices can act as a carcinogen as well as a co-carcinogen. (16, 34,35,36,37,38,39)

Acute Effects: Electrosensitivity as a Clinical Diagnosis

The rising use of wireless devices and computers has not only revealed over time a variety of long term health concerns but also an increasingly recognized syndrome called electrosensitivity.  More people in all walks of life are reporting vague symptoms of headaches, insomnia, mental confusion, heart palpitations and fatigue in the presence of wireless devices and when in close proximity to cell towers.  These are classic signs of microwave illness described in reports by NASA, the Department of Defense and the EPA. (23,24,25,51) In addition, the United States Access Board recognizes “that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” (45) Various population based surveys internationally report 1.5% to 13.3% of the population are electrosensitive. (64)

Over a decade ago firefighters studied and reported the development of symptoms of electrosensitivity after cell towers were placed on fire stations. They noted severe headaches, sleep deprivation, depression, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, slowed reaction time, tremors and vertigo after cell antennas were installed. The International Association of Firefighters were so concerned they commissioned a study which confirmed adverse effects on the firefighters, and then authored a policy statement asking for exemptions from placement of cell towers on their facilities so they could maintain “optimal cognitive and physical capacity at all times”. (72)

Research is advancing with evidence that electrosensitivity may be related to multiple chemical sensitivity as a toxic exposure. Common pathological mechanisms are suggested as illness appears related to oxidative and inflammatory processes as noted above. Biomarkers for electrosensitivity have been proposed to help diagnose the condition. (17,18)

Chronic Disease Rising Along with Rising Health Care Costs

 Physicians are tasked with both treating disease and promoting good health for their patients. The development of a chronic illness affects an individual’s well-being and their ability to work, while increasing health care costs for the individual and for society.  Preventing illness is both a moral and an economic imperative.

The growing epidemic of chronic diseases in the U.S. has increased awareness of certain health risk behaviors. It has also highlighted the need to identify causes in order to prevent debilitating disease and not just treat episodic illness.  The CDC estimates that over 50% of all Americans have one or more chronic diseases, up to 40% being preventable. (1, 2) Currently, chronic diseases account for 86% of our nation’s health care costs or about $3 trillion annually. (3)

Electronic Devices: A Modifiable Health Risk Behavior?

In light of the research it appears that the use of electronic devices should be considered a health risk behavior accompanied by appropriate preventative cautions. Those individuals who are more vulnerable to harm from toxic exposures need special consideration e.g. pregnant women, children, the elderly, those with chronic illness and people with hypersensitivity to EMR and chemicals.

Biologic Harm to Living Organisms 

Science is revealing harm to all living organisms including trees, plants, animals, insects and bacteria, from radiofrequency EMR exposure with levels at or below current U.S. safety guidelines. (11,40, 55, 56, 57)

There is great unease among birders and farmers with emerging research indicating that the decline in wildlife and bee populations could be associated with higher levels of ambient EMR. Bees are an important pollinator species. Songbirds are seeing a dramatic decline.  Birds and bees use an iron ore mineral called magnetite in their brains for navigation and distant migration. Electromagnetic microwave radiation has been shown to disrupt this process. Research has demonstrated abnormalities in reproduction and behavior of birds nesting near cell towers and harm to amphibians. (54-63)

Trees Harmed by Radiofrequency EMR

In 2016 Waldmann-Selsam et al., wrote a seminal paper documenting cell tower radiation damage to trees over time. They completed a detailed rigorous long-term (2006-2015) field monitoring study in Germany. The researchers concluded, “These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.” (40) Harm to plants is increasingly found. (55,56)

Other Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Devices and Digital Technology

There are a host of related health issues with the use of digital technology such as obesity, ergonomic back strain, computer vision syndrome, repetitive strain, technology addiction, psychosocial impairment and exacerbation of mental illness that are being studied and need to be addressed. (8,9,10,12,65,66,67,68,69)

Scientists Warn of Public Health Crisis

More than 230 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health have signed an appeal to the World Health Organization calling for precautionary health warnings and stronger regulation of wireless radiation. (108)

They and others are concerned that the pervasive use and exposure to wireless devices represent an unidentified impending health crisis. We are exposed currently to 2G(phasing out), 3G and 4 G wireless telecommunications technologies. As new immersive interconnected wireless technologies are developed for 5G application, proposed new cellular antennas will proliferate on the ground and in the air, and we would see an increase in the complexity of EMR frequencies, pulsations and density which have not been shown safe for humans. Respected researchers have given us a much better understanding that this increased EMR exposure is a decisive threat to our health and the environment.

Organizations Recognizing Harm from Microwave Radiofrequency Radiation

In 2011 the International Agency on Radiation and Cancer listed wireless microwave radiation as possibly carcinogenic. (30)

The European Parliament in 2011 produced Resolution 1815 on the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. The goals listed include setting preventable thresholds for long term exposure, raising awareness throughout the community, and protecting “early warning” scientists. (75)

The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses gives an “overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.” (14,76)

 France in 2015 adopted a law regulating public exposure to electromagnetic waves.  The French parliament regulations were developed to protect the public from overexposure to electromagnetic radiation and to provide transparency and monitoring. (77) Many municipalities have addressed wireless technology safety with policy actions. (78)

In June 2015 the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons in the Canadian Parliament issued a report on radio frequency electromagnetic radiation and health. After research and testimony was submitted at public hearings looking at safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation several recommendations were made by the standing committee. These included

  • funding research on EMR and electro-sensitivity
  • developing an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technology such as cell phones and Wi-Fi both in the home and at school
  • consider marketing policy for advertising to children under 14. (79)

The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that 1) protect children’s health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices; 2) reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and 3) provide sufficient information that enables consumers to make informed decisions when they purchase mobile phones. (15)

Safety guidelines are considered obsolete and inappropriate for protection of health and the environment. (49,50)

Precautionary Principle and Harm Reduction

The only way to avoid potential harm by wireless EMR is to reduce or avoid exposure and use safer alternatives such as a wired connection, fiberoptics or coaxial cables. Many countries have adopted a precautionary approach regarding the use of wireless devices including France, Belgium, Germany, India, Israel, Spain, Venezuela, Russia, the European Environment Agency and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (14,46,47,48)

The Precautionary Principle of Science Defined

When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is

  • threatening to human life or health, or
  • serious and effectively irreversible, or
  • inequitable to present or future generations, or
  • imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected. (20)

Physicians for Safe Technology

The use of wireless devices and general use of technology is convenient and useful but can have significant health impacts on children, adults, the environment and our society at large. It poses a threat to all living organisms. There is significant scientific evidence that this technology should be considered as another health risk behavior with precautions advised. There are currently insufficient regulations or guidelines for safe use. The Physicians for Safe Technology website will present the scientific evidence, rationale and recommendations for the safer use of digital technology.


1)  CDC.

2) CDC.

 3) National Center for Chronic Disease prevention and Health promotion. CDC. 2015.

 4)  Environmental Determinants of Chronic Disease and Medical Approaches: Recognition, Avoidance, Supportive Therapy, and Detoxification . Sears,M. Journal of Environmental And public Health. Volume 2012 (2012).

 5) Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. What we can do now. 2008-2009 President’s Cancer Panel.

6) Diverse Toxic Chemicals Disrupt Cell Function through a Common Path. Liza Gross. PLoS Biol 5(2): e4. Feb 6, 2007.

7) Heavy Metals Toxicity and the Environment. Paul B Tchounwou. EXS. 2012; 101: 133–164..

8) Screen time is associated with adiposity and insulin resistance in children. Nightingale CM. BMJ. Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 13 March 2017. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312016

9) Why Social Media is not smart for middle school kids. March 26, 2017.

10) Reset Your Child’s Brain: A 4 Week Plan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades, and Boost Social Skills by Reversing the Effects of Electronic Screen time.  Victoria Dunckley, MD.

11) BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at, December 31, 2012 at

12) The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age.  Catherine Steiner-Adair. 2014.

13) American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s media Use.  10/21/16.

14) Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Page 374- Biological Effects at Low intensity)  B. Blake Levitt, Henry Lai. Environmental Reviews, 2010, 18(NA): 369-395.

15) American Academy of Pediatrics Letter to FCC regarding “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” .  August 29, 2013.

16) Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. Chapter 4. Modified Health Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Combined with Other Agents Reported in the Biomedical Literature. 2017. Ronald N. Kostoff and Clifford G.Y. Lau.   and

17) Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme, D. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71.

18) The implications of non-linear biological oscillations on human electrophysiology for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Sage C.  Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):293-303.

19) Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Kaszuba-Zwoińska J. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41.

20) The Precautionary Principle Website.

21) Evaluating FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields. FCC OET Bulletin No.65 (August 1997)

22) Mobile and Portable Device – RF Exposure Procedures and Equipment Authorization Policies.

23) NASA Report – Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories. April 1981. Jeremy Raines, PhD.

24) Efforts By The Environmental Protection Agency To Protect The Public From Environmental Nonionizing Radiation Exposures. United States General Accounting Office. CED-78-79, 1978.

25) US EPA Office of Air and Radiation  and Office of Research and Development: Summary of Results of the April 26-27,1993 Radiofrequency Radiation conference.  March 1995.

26) Cumulated index to the Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: report, supplements (no. 1-9), BEMS newsletter (B-1 through B-464), 1971-1981. ) Glaser Z Indexed by Julie Moore. Riverside, CA: Julie Moore & Associates, 1984.

27) The effects of traffic radar guns on law enforcement officers : hearing before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Consumer and Environmental Issues of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, August 10, 1992.

28) Radar Guns May Beam Danger to Officers : Law enforcement: Cancer in police personnel has prompted lawsuits, changes in training and cautionary note from FDA.

29) Do extremely low frequency magnetic fields enhance the effects of environmental carcinogens? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Juutilainen J Kumlin T Naarala J.  2006   Ing J Radiat Biol 82:  1-12.

30) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. May 2011.

31) The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

32) Wireless Devices and Health Concerns.


34) Combined Toxic Exposures and Human Health: Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect. Sillons,I.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Mar; 8(3): 629–647

35) Cellular neoplastic transformation induced by 916 MHz microwave radiation. Yang L1. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2012 Aug;32(6):1039-46.

 36) Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Lerchl A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90.

37) Indication of co-carcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. Tillmann T. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Jul;86(7):529-41.

 38) Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage C. Child Dev. 2017 May 15

39) National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure)

40) Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554-569

 41) Redox- and non-redox-metal-induced formation of free radicals and their role in human disease. Valko M. Arch Toxicol. 2015 Sep 7.

42) Metals, oxidative stress and neurodegenerative disorders. Jomova K. Mol Cell Biochem. 2010 Dec;345(1-2):91-104.

43)  Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. De Luliis.  PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7).

44) The Main Approaches of Studying the Mechanisms of Action of Artificial Electromagnetic Fields on Cell. Yuriy Shckorbatov. Journal of Electronics and Electronic Systems. March 7, 2014.

 45) Americans with Disability.

46) The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. European Parliament.

 47) France: Law on Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Waves Adopted.  Feb 5, 2015.

48) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians.Report of the Standing Committee on Health. June 2015.

49) 1996 Telecommunications Act.

50) Section 704 of 1996 Telecommunications Act. FCC NEW NATIONAL WIRELESS TOWER SITING POLICIES.

51) Defense Intelligence Agency: Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves)  in Eurasian Communist Countries. October 10, 1975. Prepared by Army Medical Intelligence and the office of the Surgeon General.

52) Increase of oxidation and inflammation in nervous and immune systems with aging and anxiety. Vida C. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(29):4656-78.

53) Circulating Advanced Oxidation Protein Products as Oxidative Stress Biomarkers and Progression Mediators in Pathological Conditions Related to Inflammation and Immune Dysregulation. Cristani M. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23(34):3862-3882.

54) Report on possible impacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees. Ministry of Environment and Forests. 2011.

55) Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review. Sivani Saravanamuttu. January 9.  2013.



 58) Weak Broadband Electromagnetic Fields are More Disruptive to Magnetic Compass Orientation in a Night-Migratory Songbird (Erithacus rubecula) than Strong Narrow-Band Fields. 2016. Front Behav Neuroscience. March 2016.        “Our results indicated that the magnetic compass orientation of European robins could not be disrupted by any of the relatively strong narrow-band electromagnetic fields employed here, but that the weak broadband field very efficiently disrupted their orientation”

59) Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Engels, S. Nature. Jan 2014.

60) Electromagnetic Radiation of Mobile Communication Antennas Affects the Abundance and composition of Wild Pollinators. Lazaro,A.  Journal of Insect Conservation react-text: 61 20(2):1-10 /react-text react-text: 64  ·  /react-text react-text: 65 April 2016.

61) Effect of Electromagnetic (cell phone) radiations on Apis mellifera. Dalio, J. Journal of Research in Agriculture and Animal Science Volume 2 ~ Issue 12 (2015) pp:06-10. Feb. 2015.

62) Effect of high-frequency radiations on survival of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Darney,K. Apidologie react-text: 55 47(5) /react-text react-text: 58  ·  /react-text react-text: 59 December 2015.

63) Is Electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis. Marie-Claire Cammaerts. Journal of Behavior. 2 (1): 1006. March 28, 2017.

64) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – an increasing challenge to the medical profession. Hedendahl L. 2015 Rev Environ Health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):209-15.

65) Computer vision syndrome: A review. Gowrisankaran S. Work. 2015;52(2):303-14.

66) Computer Use and Habitual Spinal Posture in Australian Adolescents. Leon M. Straker, Public Health Rep. 2007 Sep-Oct; 122(5): 634–643.

67) Australia and Other Nations are Failing to Meet Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Children: Implications and a Way Forward. Leon Straker. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. June 2, 2015.

68) Evidence-based guidelines for the wise use of computers by children: Physical development guidelines. Leon Straker. Ergonomics react-text: 15 53(4):458-77. 19 April 2010.

69) Assessment of Stresses in the Cervical Spine Caused by Posture and Position of the Head.  SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL XXV. 277-279. Kenneth Hansraj, MD. 2014.

70) Circulating Advanced Oxidation Protein Products as Oxidative Stress Biomarkers and Progression Mediators in Pathological Conditions Related to Inflammation and Immune Dysregulation. Cristani M, Curr Med Chem. 2016;23(34):3862-3882..

71) [The advanced oxidation protein products as potential diagnostic and prognostic factor in diseases of the indicated participation of oxidative stress]. Piwowar A. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 2014 May 8;68:446-58.

72) International Association of Firefighters: Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities. 2011.

73) Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Jerry L. Phillips, Narendra Pal Singh. Henry Lai. Pathophysiology react-text: 15 16(2-3):79-88, 19 April 2009.

74) Pesticides and oxidative stress: a review. Mohammad Abdollahi. Med Sci Monit, 2004; 10(6): RA141-147.

75) European Parliamentary Assembly. Resolution 1815. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. (2011).

76)  EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.

77) France: Law on Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Waves Adopted.  Feb 5, 2015.

78) Environmental Health Trust Database of Worldwide Policy on Wireless Technology.

79)  Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians. Report of the Standing Committee on Health. June 2015.

80) Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review. Sivani Saravanamuttu react-text: 9 , January 2013.

81) Mechanism of Microwave Radiation- Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. Pall, M. Journal of Cellular Molecular Medicine. Aug 2013.

 82) Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Pall, M. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(2):99-116.

83) Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling in challenged biological systems. Pilla, A.  Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2012 Sep 28;426(3):330-3. Epub 2012 Aug 24.

84) Electromagnetic Fields: Principles,…Biophysical Effects. ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL FIELDS AND LIVING SYSTEMS DETERMINES HEALTH AND WELL-BEING. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos.. ©2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

85) THE BODY ELECTRIC: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Robert O. Becker, MD and Gary Selden. Marrow publishing 1985.

86) In SYNC: the ins and outs of circadian oscillations in calcium. Imaizumi T.  Sci STKE. 2007 Jun 12;2007(390).

87) Minireview: The circadian clockwork of the suprachiasmatic nuclei–analysis of a cellular oscillator that drives endocrine rhythms. Maywood ES . Endocrinology. 2007 Dec;148(12):5624-34. Maywood ES.

88) 900-MHz microwave radiation promotes oxidation in rat brain. Kesari KK1, Kumar S, Behari J.Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Dec;30(4):219-34.

88) Cell type specific redox status is responsible for diverse electromagnetic field effects. Simkó M. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14:1141–52.

89) Electromagnetic fields, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration. Consales C, Merla C, Marino C, et al. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012:683897.

90) 900 MHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative stress on heart, lung, testis and liver tissues. Esmekaya MA, Ozer C, Seyhan N. Gen Physiol Biophys. 2011;30:84–9.

91) Effects of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on oxidative stress parameters in rat lymphoid organs, polymorphonuclear leukocytes and plasma. Aydin B, Akar A. Arch Med Res. 2011;42:261–7.

92) 900 MHz radiofrequency-induced histopathologic changes and oxidative stress in rat endometrium: protection by vitamins E and C. Guney M, Ozguner F, Oral B, et al.  Toxicol Ind Health. 2007;23:411–20.

93) Calcium Channel Dysfunction Causes a Multisystem Disorder Including Arrhythmia and Autism. Cell. Vol.119, Issue 1, p19–31, 1 October 2004. Igor Splawsk,

 94) Understanding How Calcium Channels Open and Close. Northwestern Medicine.Feb 21, 2017.

95) Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels in Epilepsy. Jasper’s Basic Mechanisms of the Epilepsies [Internet]. 4th edition. Cain, S.

96) Molecular nature of voltage-gated calcium channels: structure and species comparison. Tyson, J. Advanced Review. Volume 2, September/October 2013 © 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.;jsessionid=B349750FFE7DBBBD0A8CB852590F47A9.f01t02?v=1&t=j5q2om7b&s=c3011e899e57378d8a306ee342ec6d546cb0962e

97) Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, et al. Radiat Res. 2008;169:319–29.

98) Evaluation of the Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Router and Mobile Phone Simulator on the Antibacterial Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli. Taheri M. Dose Response. 2017 Jan 23;15(1).

99) A Review of Recent Studies on Malondialdehyde as Toxic Molecule and Biological Marker of Oxidative Stress. Daniele Del Rio, Amanda Stewart, Nicoletta Pellegrini. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases (2005) 15, 316e328.

100) Toxic Metals and Oxidative Stress Part I: Mechanisms Involved in Me-tal induced Oxidative Damage. Nuran Ercal, Hande Gurer-Orhan and Nukhet Aykin-Burns. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 2001. 1, 529-539.

101) DNA electrophoretic migration patterns change after exposure of Jurkat cells to a single intense nanosecond electric pulse. Romeo S, Zeni L, Sarti M, et al. .  PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28419.

102) Long-lasting plasma membrane permeabilization in mammalian cells by nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF). .. Pakhomov AG. , Kolb JF, White JA, Joshi RP, Xiao S, Schoenbach KH.  Bioelectromagnetics. 2007 Dec;28(8):655-63.

103) How big are radio waves? NASA.

104) Electromagnetic Spectrum.

105) Bees Can Sense the Electric Fields of Flowers. National Geographic. Dr Clarke and Dr. Whitney. U of Bristol.  Feb 2013.

106) Biogenic Magnetite as a Basis for Magnetic Field Detection in Animals. Biosystems. 1981. Vol 13. 181-201. Kirschvink,J., Gould, J.

107) Is Electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis. Marie-Claire Cammaerts. Journal of Behavior. 2 (1): 1006. March 28, 2017.

108) EMF Scientists Appeal to the United Nations and the WHO for more protective EMF guidelines.

109) Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Morgan, L., Kesari,S., Davis, D. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. Volume 2, Issue 4 react-text: 71 , /react-text react-text: 72 December 2014 /react-text react-text: 73 , Pages 197-204

110) What are the biological effects of ionizing radiation?

111) Shoe Store Fluoroscope.



114) Reactive oxygen species in cell signaling. Thannickal VJ1, Fanburg BL. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2000 Dec;279(6):L1005-28.

115) Free radicals, metals and antioxidants in oxidative stress-induced cancer. Valko M1, Rhodes CJ, Moncol J, Izakovic M, Mazur M. Chem Biol Interact. 2006 Mar 10;160(1):1-40. Epub 2006 Jan 23.

116) A Quantitative Method to Monitor Reactive Oxygen Species Production by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in Physiological and Pathological Conditions. Simona Mrakic-Sposta et al. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. Volume 2014 (2014).

117) On reactive oxygen species measurement in living systems. LA Pavelescu. J Med Lifev.8(Spec Issue); 2015.

118) Fluorescence probes used for detection of reactive oxygen species. Gomes et al.  J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 65 (2005) 45–80.

119) Database of Worldwide Policies On Cell Phones, Wireless and Health.

120) “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health”. David Michaels. 2008.

121) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Mark SPearcePhD  et al. Lancet. Volume 380, Issue 9840 react-text: 66 , /react-text react-text: 67 4–10 August 2012 /react-text react-text: 68 , Pages 499-50.

122) Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. Martin Pall. J. Cell. Mol. Med. Vol 17, No 8, 2013 pp. 958-965.

123) Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure, Oxidative Stress and Epigenetic Programing of Health and Disease. Sujeenthar Tharmalingam et al. April 21, 2017. Radiation Research.

124) Genome-wide methylation analysis of a large population sample shows neurological pathways involvement in chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain. Gregory Livshits et al. Pain. 2017 Jun; 158(6): 1053–1062.

125) Integrative DNA methylome analysis of pan-cancer biomarkers in cancer discordant monozygotic twin-pairs. Roos L et al. Clin Epigenetics. 2016 Jan 20;8:7.

126) Novel epigenetic changes unveiled by monozygotic twins discordant for smoking habits. Allione A et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 4;10(6)

127) Epigenetics and environmental chemicals. A Baccarelli* and V. Bollati.  Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Apr; 21(2): 243–251.

128) Environmental toxicants–induced epigenetic alterations and their reversers. Kim M1, Bae M, Na H, Yang M. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2012;30(4):323-67.

129) Ionizing radiation and children’s health: Conclusions. ( 2006) Acta Pediatrica.2006;95.Suppl 453:81-85.

130) Molecular and Cellular Responses to Ionizing Radiation. 2006.National Academies Press.

131) Effect of Exposure to 900 MHz GSM Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation on Estrogen Receptor Methylation Status in Colon Cells of Male Sprague Dawley Rats. Mokarram et al. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2017 Mar 1;7(1):79-86.

132) Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Cindy Sage and Ernesto Burgio. May 15, 2017.Child Development.

133) Epigenetic Changes Induced by Reactive Oxygen Species in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Methylation of the E-cadherin Promoter. Seung-Oe Lim et al. Gastroenterology. December 2008Volume 135, Issue 6, Pages 2128–2140.

134) Ionizing radiation-induced oxidative stress, epigenetic changes and genomic instability: the pivotal role of mitochondria. Szumiel I. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015 Jan;91(1):1-12.

135) DNA methylation: a form of epigenetic control of gene expression. Derek Kim and Eamonn Maher. The Obstetrician and Gynecologist. 2010.

136) Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Lai H1, Singh NP. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(3):207-10.

137) Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Lai H1, Singh NP. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996 Apr;69(4):513-21.

138) Melatonin and a spin-trap compound block radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Lai H1, Singh NP. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997;18(6):446-54.

139) Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Phillips JL1, Singh NP, Lai H.  Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):79-88.

140) The Comet Assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nature Protocols 1, 23 – 29 (2006) Peggy L Olive& Judit P Banáth.

141) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Singh, N.P., McCoy, M.T., Tice, R.R. & Schneider, E.L.  Exp. Cell Res. 175, 184–191 (1988).

142) Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Paulraj R1, Behari J. (2006)  Mutat Res. 2006 Apr 11;596(1-2):76-80.

143) Genetic damage in mobile phone users: Some preliminary findings. (2005) Gandhi, G. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.

144) Genetic damage in subjects exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Verschaeve L. (2009)  Mutat Res. 2009 Mar-Jun;681(2-3):259-70. Mutat Res. 2009 Mar-Jun;681(2-3):259-70.

145) The Reflex Project. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods.

146) How Susceptible are Genes to Mobile Phone Radiation? Effects of Wireless Communications Technologies. March 2009.  Dr. Hecht, Dr. Kern, Dr. Richter, Dr. Scheiner.

147) Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. (2015) Dasdag et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2015 Jul;91(7):555. 61.

148) Long term and excessive use of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation alter microRNA expression in brain. (2015) Dasdag et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology. Volume 91, 2015.

149) MicroRNA: Biogenesis, Function and Role in Cancer. (2010) Leigh-Ann MacFarlane and Paul R. Murphy. Curr Genomics. 2010 Nov; 11(7): 537–561.

150) Essai sur E’lectricite des Corps. Paris: Guerin. ” Observations sur quelles nouveaux phénomènes s’electricite.”  Jean Antoine Nollet. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences 1746: 1-23.

151) The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Arthur Firstenberg. (2017). AGB Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.