Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Front Public Health. 2019 Aug 13;7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223. eCollection 2019.

Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.

Author information

1
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
2
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Prevent Cancer Now, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
3
Environmental Health Trust, Teton Village, WY, United States.
4
The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden.
5
School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
6
School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
7
Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Abstract

Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a "possible" (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull's bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.

KEYWORDS:

acoustic neuroma; brain cancer; child development; electromagnetic hypersensitivity; glioma; non-cancer outcomes; policy recommendations; radiofrequency fields

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Frontiers Media SA Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center