research topics on cell phone radiation

Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

The telecommunications industry insists cellphone technology is safe. But the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health is determined to prove it wrong.

By Anne Brice

July 1, 2021

The vast majority of American adults — 97% — own a cellphone of some kind, according to the Pew Research Center . (Photo by Susanne Nilsson via Flickr)

For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz , a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.

“People are addicted to their smartphones,” said Moskowitz. “We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.”

Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1983, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphones are now used by nearly all American adults , considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz.

Joel Moskowitz is a researcher in the School of Public Health and director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley. (School of Public Health photo)

“Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz. “Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.”

Since then, he said, research has shown significant adverse biologic and health effects — including brain cancer — associated with the use of cellphones and other wireless devices. And now, he said, with the fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G, there is an even bigger reason for concern .

Berkeley News spoke with Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.

Berkeley News: I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?

Joel Moskowitz: Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid.

A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.

More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal , which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.

I first heard you speak about the health risks of cellphone radiation at Berkeley in 2019, but you’ve been doing this research since 2009. What led you to pursue this research?

I got into this field by accident, actually. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my research has been focused on tobacco-related disease prevention. I first became interested in cellphone radiation in 2008, when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for Family and Community Health. He was involved in our smoking cessation projects, and we worked with him and his colleagues on two reviews of the literature, one of which addressed the tumor risk from cellphone use.

At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could cause cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices.

After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage — I became increasingly convinced that what we were observing in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.

While Myung and his colleagues were visiting the Center for Family and Community Health, you reviewed case-control studies examining the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. What did you find?

Our 2009 review , published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology , found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding.

Last year, we updated our review , published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings. Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.

Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?

The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency , a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now.

The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA , which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.

The telecom industry’s influence over the FCC, as you describe, reminds me of the tobacco industry and the advertising power it had in downplaying the risks of smoking cigarettes.

Yes, there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. In the 1940s, tobacco companies hired doctors and dentists to endorse their products to reduce public health concerns about smoking risks. The CTIA currently uses a nuclear physicist from academia to assure policymakers that microwave radiation is safe. The telecom industry not only uses the tobacco industry playbook, it is more economically and politically powerful than Big Tobacco ever was. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide.

You mentioned that cellphones and other wireless devices use modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation. Can you explain how cellphones and other wireless devices work, and how the radiation they emit is different from radiation from other household appliances, like a microwave?

Basically, when you make a call, you’ve got a radio and a transmitter. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cellphones within that geographic region or cell.

Then, that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or, in many cases, a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point. Then, that access point either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or, if you’re calling another cellphone, it will send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth.

The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.

What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?

Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.

In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.

Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.

Let’s talk about the fifth generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, which is already available in limited areas across the U.S. What does this mean for cellphone users and what changes will come with it?

For the first time, in addition to microwaves, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than the microwaves used by 3G and 4G. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by fog or rain, trees and building materials, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites.

Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cellphone providers, and each of these antennas may have microarrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas. In the next few years in the U.S., we will see deployed roughly 2.5 times more antenna sites than in current use unless wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system put a halt to this.

How are millimeter waves different from microwaves, in terms of how they affect our bodies and the environment?

Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes and the testes, based upon the body of research that’s been done on millimeter waves . In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems — the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain.

Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug-resistant pathogens, so it’s likely to have some widespread environmental effects for the microenvironments around these cell antenna sites.

What are some simple things that each of us can do to reduce the risk of harm from radiation from cellphones and other wireless devices?

First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible. If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them. However, when near a Wi-Fi router, you would be better off using your cellphone on Wi-Fi and turning off the cellular because this will likely result in less radiation exposure than using the cellular network.

Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack. If you have to put it in your pocket, put it on airplane mode. Text, use wired headphones or speakerphone for calls. Don’t sleep with it next to your head — turn it off or put it in another room.

Third, use your phone only when the signal is strong. Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone. For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.

Also, I encourage people to learn more about the 150-plus local groups affiliated with Americans for Responsible Technology , which are working to educate policymakers, urging them to adopt cell tower regulations and exposure limits that fully protect us and the environment from the harm caused by wireless radiation.

For safety tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation from the California Department of Public Health and other organizations, Moskowitz recommends readers visit his website, saferemr.com , Physicians for Safe Technology and the Environmental Health Trust .

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

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

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

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

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

Is the radiation from cell phones harmful?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interphone Case–Control Study

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

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

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

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

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

Danish Cohort Study

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

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

Million Women Cohort Study

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

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

Cohort Study of Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS)

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

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

Other Epidemiologic Studies

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

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

What are the findings from studies of the human body?

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

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

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

What are the findings from experiments in laboratory animals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are other possible health effects from cell phone use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

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

Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones

Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space. For example, an electric heater operates by heating metal wires and the wires radiate that energy as heat (infrared radiation).

Radio frequency radiation is a type of electromagnetic radiation , which is a combination of electric and magnetic fields that move through space together as waves. Electromagnetic radiation falls into two categories:

Generally, when people hear the word radiation , they’re thinking of ionizing radiation , like X-rays and gamma rays. Ionizing radiation carries enough energy to break chemical bonds, knock electrons out of atoms, and cause direct damage to cells in organic matter. In fact, ionizing radiation carries more than a billion times more energy than does non-ionizing radiation. A little ionizing radiation can be used to produce x-ray images for diagnosis. A lot of ionizing radiation is needed to kill cancer cells in radiation therapy.

By contrast, non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds or strip electrons from atoms. Scientific consensus shows that non-ionizing radiation is not a carcinogen and, at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC, non-ionizing radiation has not been shown to cause any harm to people.

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

For a more detailed description of radio frequency radiation, see Microwaves, Radio Waves, and Other Types of Radiofrequency Radiation from the American Cancer Society.

For more information about the electromagnetic spectrum, see NASA’s Tour of the Electromagnetic Spectrum .

For more information about radio frequency safety, see the FCC’s RF Safety FAQ .

What is mobile phone radiation and how safe is it?

Science What is mobile phone radiation and how safe is it?

Australians love their smartphones: 88 per cent of us own at least one, and a whole generation has never known life without them.

But with pervasive smartphone use and associated radio waves they need to work, are there any health effects?

One of the first scientists to pose this question was Australian physiologist Ross Adey in the 1970s.

While mobile phones were yet to gain the ubiquity they have today, Professor Adey was concerned by the frequencies emitted by household appliances and electric power lines.

In experiments conducted in the US, he found rabbit brain tissue was sensitive to very weak electromagnetic radiation .

Professor Adey was, unsurprisingly, a controversial figure until his death in 2004, and few of his experiments have been replicated.

But in the decades since that initial research, loads of time and money have been spent looking into how electromagnetic radiation might affect our health, from sleep patterns to cancer.

Let's start with the basics.

What is electromagnetic radiation?

We are surrounded by all sorts of different types of electromagnetic radiation every day: your eyes pick up visible light, your bag is scanned by X-rays at airport security, microwaves heat your lunch and too much ultraviolet light gives you sunburn.

At its essence, electromagnetic radiation is energy comprising an electric field and magnetic field, which travel together, but perpendicularly, in waves.

Sometimes the length of these waves (or wavelength) is very short — a few nanometres for X-rays — while others are much longer — a few centimetres up to kilometres.

It's these long wavelengths, called radio waves, that are the electromagnetic radiation of choice for mobile phones and base stations.

Unlike shorter wavelengths, such as visible light, radio waves can pass through walls. The longer the wavelength, the better it can penetrate solid stuff.

Another term you might see is frequency, which is the number of times a wave makes a full oscillation each second.

Frequency and wavelength are closely related. Wavelength is the speed of light divided by the frequency, so long wavelengths also have low frequency.

What are ionising and non-ionising radiation?

The radio frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum is home to what's known as "non-ionising radiation", said Rodney Croft, from the University of Wollongong and director of the Australian Centre of Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research.

It's the high-frequency, short wavelength radiation, such as X-rays, that can tinker with your DNA and are linked to cancer.

These waves are small enough and carry enough energy to knock electrons off atoms, ionising them.

Radio frequency used in mobile communications simply doesn't have the energy to do that. But that's not to say it doesn't exert any effects on the matter it travels through.

"It's an oscillating wave, which swings between positive and negative," Professor Croft said.

"As the positive bit moves towards a positively charged molecule, like water, it will cause [the molecule] to rotate a little bit.

"If you have a bunch of molecules rotating, that causes friction, and energy is given off as heat. It's how a microwave oven works."

Does anyone regulate radio frequency limits?

In Australia, mobile phone and base station exposure limits are set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The ARPANSA standard looks at how much energy a user absorbs from a mobile phone over time.

The maximum limit is currently 2 watts per kilogram of tissue . Phone manufacturers usually specify their maximum absorption rate in their manual.

You can find how much radio frequency is emitted by base stations at the Radio Frequency National Site Archive .

According to ARPANSA, it's " typically hundreds of times below the [ARPANSA] limits".

What are the effects of mobile radio frequency on tissues?

So are we microwaving our head whenever we answer the phone? A tiny bit, but not enough to be worried about, Professor Croft said.

He and his team found mobile phone radiation exposure increases the temperature of the outer grey, wrinkled layer of the brain called the cortex, but it's only "maybe about 0.1 degree, which is very small compared to the temperature variation the body normally has to contend with", he said.

"We do find that we get a slight change to thermoregulation, so the body, even with that small change, is sending a bit more blood out to the periphery to cool it, so your body doesn't end up warming up."

What about activity in the brain?

In work published in 2008, he and his colleagues held a Nokia phone to the head of healthy participants and monitored their brain waves.

What they found were changes to a type of brain activity called alpha waves, which are associated with relaxation, but the effects were incredibly subtle: mobile phone exposure enhanced alpha wave activity by around 5 per cent.

"Normally, if you close your eyes, you might double your alpha activity," Professor Croft said.

"So the [mobile phone] effect is very, very small relative to quite mundane functions, and that's why we've been doing a bit of work to find out if there are any functional consequences.

"It could be that there is an effect, but it's not strong enough to actually do anything meaningful to a person. So far, we haven't been able to find anything."

It's also important to remember that this work was done way back in the days of second-generation, or 2G, cellular technology, said Professor Andrew Wood, a biophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology.

"2G used quite long wavelengths. Now the wavelengths are shorter, and the radiation doesn't penetrate [the head] as much."

Does mobile radiation affect plants?

Researchers have looked to the plant world too, to see if radio frequency stunts growth or makes the plant flourish.

For instance, Malka Halgamuge at the University of Melbourne bathed germinating soybeans in mobile phone or base station radiation.

When they measured how quickly the seedlings grew, she and her colleagues found the plants exposed to base station radiation grew longer roots and a shorter shoot compared to their non-radiated counterparts.

But look outside, and it's obvious that their results in the lab don't reflect the real world.

"If you observe the area around a base station in Australia, you don't see shorter trees around the base station and taller trees further away," Dr Halgamuge said.

So what's behind the discrepancy?

Dr Halgamuge suspects it's because plants — like us — have built-in systems that mend any minor damage that low-level radiation might inflict — even if it's long-term exposure.

What about cancer in rodents?

Mobile phones are classed as "possibly carcinogenic" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, putting them in the same category as aloe vera, bracken fern and Asian pickled vegetables.

And while radio frequency is non-ionising radiation — remember, it can't knock electrons off atoms, fiddle with genetic material and trigger tumour growth like ionising radiation can — studies still investigate possible links.

Research published in February this year by the US National Toxicology Program found tumours grew in the nerves around the heart of male rats if they were bathed in extremely high levels of mobile radiation.

But, Professor Croft said, "there were so many difficulties with that study.

"They used a much higher exposure, up to 25 times over the limit.

"As a result, their animals were getting very hot and their core temperature was very high over their entire lifespan."

The National Toxicology Program scientists acknowledged that their " findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage ".

An aspect of the study that wasn't widely reported, Professor Wood added, was the apparent protective effect of mobile radiation on the rats.

"The control rats didn't live as long as the rats that were exposed to lower levels of radio frequency."

And cancer in people?

Some research linking cancer to mobile phone radiation is in the form of "case-controlled studies", said Simon Chapman, a former public health researcher at the University of Sydney.

These studies quiz people with and without brain cancer about their mobile phone habits, and compare the groups.

But there's a flaw in the protocol: the human memory isn't as good as we'd like to think it is.

"It's hard enough to remember when you got your first mobile phone, let alone how much you used it back then," Professor Chapman said.

"Most people wouldn't have a clue."

So, in 2016, Professor Chapman looked for any increase in brain cancer incidence in the decades after mobile phones were introduced to Australia in 1987.

Today, there are "far more mobile phone accounts in Australia than there are people, that's even allowing for infants and extremely old people", Professor Chapman, who since retired, said.

"It's saturation level usage, and it's been like that for a long time."

But they found no increase in the number of brain cancers reported from 1982 to 2013, even in the years after mobile phones grew in popularity.

"We used a conservative expected incidence, should mobile phone radiation cause cancer — a 50 per cent increase," Professor Chapman said.

"We showed there was nothing remotely like that.

"The only age group which showed there was an increased incidence of brain cancer was in the very, very oldest age group. But that increase started before mobile phones were available in Australia."

The reason behind this increase, he added, is probably because more sophisticated brain diagnostic techniques picked up tumours which might have previously slipped by unnoticed.

What about 5G?

It's coming in the next couple of years and promises to bestow lightning-fast download speeds. So does this mean it's dangerous?

It's a common question, Professor Croft said: "People might say 'OK, we've seen from research that 4G is alright, but what about 5G?'"

The only real difference between the two is 5G uses a higher frequency. And with a higher frequency comes a shorter wavelength, and short wavelengths can't penetrate solid stuff as well as longer wavelengths.

"As you increase the frequency, exposure becomes more superficial," Professor Croft said.

"Energy will be concentrated in the skin itself, rather than penetrating a bit deeper. It won't go into your brain."

To that end, Professor Wood's team is building models of skin to predict how energy from mobile radiation will be absorbed.

Risks and benefits

Despite research showing no link between safe levels of radio frequency and cancer, telecommunications companies and other organisations do offer suggestions if you want to reduce exposure.

The obvious action, Dr Halgamuge said, is to limit mobile phone use: "You have no control over base stations, because that radiation is around you all the time, but you do have control over your mobile phone."

The ARPANSA also recommends using hands-free or texting instead of calling , "but none of those things are actually based on any health effects", Professor Croft said.

Then there are companies that make devices claim to block "harmful mobile radiation", he added: "But of course if it's cancelling [radio frequency] out, then your phone can't work."

So: does radio frequency have any effect on human tissue, apart from heating it a fraction of a degree?

That question is still open, Professor Wood said.

"Even though some of the evidence [that radio frequency causes damage] on the face of it looks quite compelling, there's still a question of consistency.

"Some laboratories seem to get quite dramatic effects, and then others try to replicate the work and are unable to."

Other researchers suggest that health risks associated with mobile phones may be indirect , "such as the sharply increased incidence rate of traffic accidents caused by telephony during driving, and possibly also by stress reactions which annoyed bystanders may experience when cellular phones are used in public places".

What is certain, Professor Wood said, is that radio frequency is a life-saver.

"While I don't think [radio frequency] emerges with a completely clean bill of health, it emerges with a pretty good bill of health.

"The fact is that it saves lives. Think of search and rescue and emergency situations. The benefits far outweigh the risks."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Smartphones linked to brain cancer not so, say experts.

Potential health effects of 5G network unknown: expert

• Brain and Nervous System
• Consumer Electronics
• Environmental Health
• Mobile Phones
• Mobile and Internet Access
• Science and Technology

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Cell phone addiction and psychological and physiological health in adolescents

Sehar shoukat.

1 California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751, Mangels Boulevard, Fairfield, 94534, CA, USA

“These days we have Smartphones, Smart cars, Smartboards, Smart everything, but consider this: if the technology is getting smarter, does that mean humans are getting dumber?”

Rebecca McNutt

Dear Editor,

Research has been done on smartphone usage and its impact on all adolescents from so many years. It is not a new issue at all. But the increasing trend of cell phone addiction and poor psychological and physiological health of adolescents urged to write this letter. Many studies have been done using different human behavior as dependent and independent variable. Some researcher examined adolescent's physical health or educational performance with smartphone addiction and others analyzed psychological behavior and social relationship with mobile phone addiction. In these articles, some of the latest studies were overviewed.

The rapid advancement in technology has made many gadgets, a smartphone is one of them (Nishad and Rana, 2016[ 15 ]). People spend their time more likely on social media, do business emails, academic search, finding answers to questions, and playing games. Almost 95 percent of Americans own cell phones and 77 percent own smartphones. Around the world, smartphones were used by 1.85 billion people in 2014 which is expected to be 2.32 billion in 2017 and 2.87 billion in 2020 (Cha and Seo, 2018[ 8 ]). Such too much dependency makes us “Mobile addictive”. Mobile phones make our lives easier, but on the other hand, it ties us. Mobile addiction not only has physical effects but also psychological and academics effect at the same time. Sleep deficit, anxiety, stress, and depression which are all associated with internet abuse, have been related to mobile phone usage too (De-Sola Gutiérrez et al., 2016[ 9 ]). All entities which can stimulate a person can be an addiction. Whenever a habit is converted into an obligation, it becomes an addiction (Alavi et al., 2012[ 1 ]). Few researchers believe that smartphone usage and gender are not significantly associated (Nishad and Rana, 2016[ 15 ]).

The major question is how do we get to know we are addicted to our cell phone? When a person uses his/her cell phone most of the time, unable to cut back on cell phone usage, using cell phones as a solution to boredom, feeling anxiety or depression when your phone is out of your range, losing your relationships. Research says “when cell phone use becomes an addiction, the behavior becomes stressful”. Salvatore Insiga, a neurosurgeon at Northwell Health's Neuroscience Institute in Manhasset, New York, considered that nonetheless that there is no solid proof between cell phone radiation and tumor risk but the possibility still exists. Adolescents are at high risk of being smartphone addicts (Cha and Seo, 2018[ 8 ]).

Excessive use of smartphone paired with negative attitude and feeling of anxiety and dependency on gadgets may increase the risk of anxiety and depression (Rosen et al., 2013[ 18 ], Thomée et al., 2011[ 20 ]). Jones (2014[ 10 ]) conducted a survey about Elon Students' behavior along with an online survey and found that students seemed to be addicted to their mobile phones. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the excessive smartphone use had a negative psychological effect.

Another research was conducted on mobile phone usage in adolescents. They recruited 439 students, aged 12-17 from Central Switzerland as their sample and distributed a questionnaire among their parents first, then to the children (the procedure was repeated a year later on the same sample). It was concluded that mobile phone usage during night hours was common among youngsters and reported that poor perceived health was shown due to staying up all night. No recordable association was found between memory performance and mobile phones (Schoeni et al., 2015[ 19 ]). Reinecke et al. (2017[ 17 ]) investigated psychological health effects and stimulator of digital stress. He surveyed 1,557 German internet users aged 14 to 85 and reported that communication load was positively related to perceived stress and had an indirect impact on depression and anxiety too.

Boumosleh & Jaalouk (2017[ 6 ]) investigated whether anxiety and depression independently contributed to smartphone addiction. Their sample was 668 random Lebanese undergraduate students. Their cross-sectional study proposed that depression and anxiety were also a positive predictor of smartphone addiction. They also revealed that with depression scores were a more powerful predictor as compared to anxiety. A study of Brian (2013[ 7 ]) subjected “Two days without phone” and revealed that Kenny didn't want to lose his cell ever but Franchesca was happy to not have her cell phone and she decided to give up her phone. Researchers found an intensive increase of cell phone usage among teenagers and the symptoms of depression, suicide risk factors and suicide rate in the year 2012. Cell phone addiction is negatively correlated with academic performance (Ng et al., 2017[ 14 ]; Baert et al., 2018[ 4 ]; Lepp et al., 2015[ 11 ]; Boumosleh and Jaalouk, 2018[ 5 ]). Arefin et al. (2017[ 2 ]) did a case study on business students in Bangladesh and found that increased impatience and daily life disturbance negatively affected the academic performance of students.

Negi and Godiyal (2016[ 13 ]) observed HNBUG-SRT college students while walking around the campus, along with a questionnaire and found 64 % of students used mobile phones in the campus. A randomized sample of 100 students was collected. The survey showed that there were negative psychological effects of smartphone usage on the young generation. They felt depressed and anxious while using cell phones. On the other hand, some youngsters showed relax behavior even without having a cell phone. A study investigated the addiction to the internet and personality traits and found that loyalty, emotional stability, and extroversion were the major predictors of internet addiction (Zamani et al., 2011[ 21 ]). Thomée et al. (2011[ 20 ]) purposed that high frequency of cell phone use had a risk of mental health outcomes when they had a 1-year followed-up for young students aged 20-24. They concluded that high cell phone usage was associated with sleep deprivation and symptoms of depression for both men and women.

An online study on Malaysian population stated that heavy mobile phone usage may lead to physiological and psychological complications when a study was conducted on 409 respondents (Parasuraman et al., 2017[ 16 ]). A descriptive research suggested that internet addiction is similar to drug addiction except behavioral addiction (internet addiction) doesn't involve a substance. In addition, the physical symptoms are absent in behavioral addiction, but if internet addiction continues, it will undergo the same results as alcohol addiction (Alavi et al., 2012[ 1 ]).

Another observational study reports that insomnia may lead to depression. Li et al. (2016[ 12 ]) did a prospective cohort and proposed that insomnia and risk of depression are associated. De-Sola Gutiérrez et al. (2016[ 9 ]) revealed that the problematic cell phone usage had been associated with sleep deficit, depression, anxiety, and stress.

Cha and Seo (2018[ 8 ]) aimed to examine the predictive factors of smartphone addiction in middle school students in South Korea. Two groups were chosen, one risk group and another normal group. The two groups expressed significantly different results. The predictive factors for smart phone addiction were social networking and awareness of game overuse. A researcher revealed that teenagers who spend more hours on their gadgets are highly likely more at risk of suicide. Another study by Augner and Hacker (2012[ 3 ]) examined an association between over usage or dysfunctional usage of cell phones and psychological health. They indicated that low emotional stability, chronic stress, and depression have a correlation with phone usage.

According to latest studies, it is come to know that there are two schools of thoughts. Some researchers believe that there is a positive association between cell phone addiction and the mental health of adolescence and some believe that there is a negative or indirect relation in them.

It is confirmed that adolescent's mental health and physical health is associated with cell phone addiction. But we cannot say it with 100 % accuracy that mobile phone is the only cause of poor mental or physiological health issues in adolescents. Reviewed articles of this study showed dual results. The result comes in two different schools of thoughts. One opinion emphasizes that cell phone addiction and psychological health has direct relation. Cell phone usage badly affects mental health of adolescents and they look anxious, depressed and angry or sometimes commit suicide. The suicidal rate is increasing in this era. Some studies also showed a positive relation of cell phone addiction and physiological health.

The other school of thought reveals an indirect relation between cell phone usage and psychological health. They say adolescents use cell phones at night, which leads to insomnia. And insomnia ultimately results in depression, anxiety, and depression. Cell phone addiction has no direct relation to mental health. After reviewing these results, it is concluded that there is a relationship between cell phone addiction and adolescent's mental or physical health whether they have direct or indirect relation. We cannot neglect the relation and its adverse effects on adolescents. It is suggested that more studies should be done in this regard to clarify their nature of relations.

BREAKING: FULL MEASURE INVESTIGATION FEATURES 5G AND CELL PHONE RADIATION WITH DR. DEVRA DAVIS

• BREAKING: FULL MEASURE INVESTIGATION FEATURES... /

May 20, 2024

Devra Davis PHD MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust was interviewed by  Full Measure’s  Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy award investigative reporter on the U.S. government’s decision to halt further research in cell phone radiation.

The article also features  Professor of Radiology Christopher Collins , who Attkinsson reports has been a paid consultant to the wireless industry.

Watch the Full Measure Report that was released May 19, 2024

U.S. Government Ceased Research on Wireless Health Effects 

In the interview, Dr. Davis informed viewers that this year the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)  announced  that it will no longer study the issue of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, despite its  previous research  that found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.

NTP scientists had  previously stated in their cell phone radiation fact sheet  that they were conducting follow-up research which would:

• determine the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress, including the real-time assessment of activity and response to system-generated noise and RFR signals.
• conduct physiological monitoring, including evaluation of heart rate.
• investigate whether RFR induces heating.
• further evaluate whether RFR exposure causes DNA damage.

However, the  NTP now state s that:

• Yes. NIEHS scientists conducted follow-up research to better understand some of the findings seen in the earlier RFR rodent studies
• A novel small-scale RFR exposure system was developed. The researchers tested the new exposure system using in vivo rodent studies.
• The research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected. No additional RFR studies are planned.

Full Measure had also featured an investigation on 5G Technology in 2019 entitled  5G Whiz .

https://ehtrust.org/breaking-full-measure-investigation-features-5g-and-cell-phone-radiation-with-dr-devra-davis/?emci=3f48ee0c-7818-ef11-86d0-6045bdd9e096&emdi=bd5617ac-8018-ef11-86d0-6045bdd9e096&ceid=8498094&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0rlc3i_D_0AKMAJ0PJasgONrEngAVm2R-QUOJBZblPVjbQ9LlVve_3yC0_aem_AWv2rDg9Q7lfE3QQ_UcjudD20gIGGLyeEXPfl1IoKH7paZCwzduQ_tlX7chSC-O7RcVvIPvhwP8OrMfsUqphyc6V

The Hearty Soul

The Real Cell Phone Risk Almost No One Talks About - And It's Not Radiation

Posted: May 17, 2024 | Last updated: May 17, 2024

What is Radiation?

To understand the effects of cell phones on our health and what all the hype is about, we first need to understand  why  people have raised red flags .

The Electromagnetic Field (EMF) and radiation refer to the photons, or light particles, that travel in wave-like patterns. The thing is,  everything  emits radiation – bananas, your hair dryer, even you, just at extremely low levels. Of course, other items, such as your microwave, TV, laptop, and cell phone emit much more, and procedures like x-rays or radiation treatments emit much more. To put it in perspective: If you ate 600 bananas, you would have the same level of radiation exposure as a chest x-ray. (1, 6) This is because the EMF is a spectrum. (1)

Read More:  Smartphones, Tablets Causing Mental Health Issues in Kids as Young as Two

The Electromagnetic Spectrum

The spectrum ranges from low frequency (measured in cycles per second, or hertz) and long wavelength (measured in meters) radio waves, to high frequency, short wavelength radio waves. It is divided into two sections, Non-Ionizing Radiation and Ionizing Radiation. (1)

• Ionizing Radiation  is on the higher end of the spectrum, think of x-rays, gamma rays, and the UV rays from the sun. These are the more dangerous radio waves and are known to cause cellular damage and cancer. This is why we wear sunscreen, and why you should only have a certain number of x-rays per body part in your lifetime. (1)
• Non-Ionizing Radiation  is on the lower end. These are your radio waves, microwaves, wifi, and your cell phone. While non-ionizing radiation hasn’t yet been proven to cause DNA damage, it can still be absorbed by the body to varying degrees. (1)

So this still begs the question: If I am absorbing the non-ionizing radiation from my cell phone, will it build up over time (say, thirty or forty years) and cause me to develop brain tumors? What about my children, who are smaller, more vulnerable, and have had technology in their hands since they were born?

Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer and Brain Tumors?

Currently, there have been no concrete conclusions made that cell phones promote tumor growth in humans, meaning that as of now. It is extremely difficult to study these issues because it’s impossible (and highly unethical) to isolate and account for all the variables that could confound any possible conclusions. (2, 3, 4, 5)

The other problem, is that cell phones haven’t been around long enough to fully understand what (if any) build-up effects of low-level radiation are, particularly for children who have had technology in their hands, whether it’s playing with mommy’s phone or watching a movie on an iPad practically since they were born. (2, 3, 4, 5)

What the Science Says

There have been many studies done on this subject, all which have come to the same conclusion: Inconclusive evidence. (2, 3, 4, 5)

An analysis done at Stanford University  that reviewed several studies, including the three largest studies to date, found no statistically significant increase in brain tumor and cancer rates as correlated with cell phone use. These studies include the INTERPHONE study done by the American Cancer Society on 5000 people from 13 different countries with and without tumors, the Danish Cohort Study which followed a sample of people until 2007 with a consistent subscription to a cell phone provider, and the Million Women Study, which followed 800,000 women for 7 years and their cell phone usage and exposure. Again, all the studies were inconclusive. (2)

The International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences also did an analysis of all studies published between January 1, 2000, to June 8, 2016, and were not able to come up with any conclusive evidence that cell phones cause cancer or brain tumors. (4)

Bottom line:  As of right now, the low levels of radiation emitted from cell phones are not linked to brain tumors and cancer. Scientists all agree that they need to continue to study this topic and conduct follow-up research to keep pace with fast-changing technology and monitor long-term use effects if there are any.

Read More:  Doctors Warn: Wearing Headphones Too Long Could Cause Blackheads In Ear

What does SAR mean?

SAR is an acronym for specific absorption rate and is a rating given to all technology and different cell phone brands and models as to how much radiation that can be absorbed by the human body. (7)

There is a maximum SAR rating that every phone, tablet, and computer can have in order for it to be sold to consumers, and all companies must comply with these standards. SAR ratings basically state the maximum possible exposure to radiation from that phone, however, they do not reflect absorption levels under normal conditions or daily usage. The SAR rating of a phone does not mean that is the amount of radiation you will actually absorb from the phone. (7)

The bottom line:  You do not need to concern yourself over the SAR rating of your phone. Just because your phone has a higher rating than another, does not mean that you are absorbing more radiation than someone with a different model.

To read more about the testing and meaning behind SAR ratings of cell phones, go  here .

So if you shouldn’t be stressing about brain tumors or worrying about SAR ratings, what should you be concerned about?

Thermal Exposure: The Real Concern

After using your phone for a long time, or sitting on the couch with your laptop on your lap, you’ve probably noticed how hot your device gets. Yes, part of that is from your own body heat, but primarily that is due to the non-ionizing radiation from your phone converting to thermal energy. This should be your real concern because thermal energy actually can cause DNA changes and tissue damage more than the actual radiation can. (8)

Before you get freaked out and throw your phone across the room, we want to remind you again that studies are inconclusive still. Beyond thermal energy or radiation, there are actual known negative effects of cell phone use:

• Sleep disruption: The blue light disrupts levels of melatonin and cortisol in your body, making getting a good night’s sleep more difficult. As we know, lack of sleep has a far greater impact on your health than low-level radiation from your phone. (9)
• Social connection: As we become more attached to our phones, they are taking the place of having real, in-person connections with our friends and families. This impacts our  mental and emotional health , which also has detrimental effects on our physical well-being. (10)

Safe Cell Phone Usage Tips

What all of these studies agreed on was the need for more research to be done, especially as technology changes and develops. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has labeled cell phones as a “possible carcinogen”. As one of the authors stated in the Journal of Neurological Sciences: “an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean that an association is inexistent.”

So how can you protect yourself and your family without giving up and living in a cave in the mountains? Follow these steps to enjoy the benefits of technology without letting them take over your life or your health:

• Text instead of call, to avoid having your phone right next to your head and brain.
• Go hands-free or talk on speaker phone.
• Limit cell phone usage time (especially for children)
• Don’t store your phone on your body (in pockets, bras, etc.) Keep it in a purse or bag.

We will continue to provide updates as more studies come out about the effects of long-term cell phone usage on your health. Until then, enjoy the benefits that technology has to offer, but don’t forget to unplug every once in a while and enjoy uninterrupted time with friends, family, and in nature. Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on August 25, 2016

Read More:  Why You Should Stop Charging Your Phone in Your Car

• https://www.safespaceprotection.com/emf-health-risks/what-is-emf/
• https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/smith-s1/
• https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ODEM_2016113014430479.pdf
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10072-017-2992-8
• https://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/life-is-rad
• https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-itmeans-you
• https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/
• https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side
•   https://illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/334240

The post The Real Cell Phone Risk Almost No One Talks About – And It's Not Radiation appeared first on The Hearty Soul .

More for You

16 Car Brands With Notoriously High Maintenance Costs—and 3 With the Lowest

Medieval hermit's home reveals huge surprise

Stephen Hawking once gave a simple answer as to whether there was a God

Helicopter emoji post shared after news of Iranian president's crash | Fact check

Who will replace Katy Perry on 'American Idol'? Here are some of the possible candidates

I did the 3-minute frog pose exercise every day for one week — here's what happened

Top 12 American Muscle Cars of All Time

Charlie Colin, founding member of the band Train, dies at 58 after slipping in shower

Homeowner Finds Secret Room Hidden Behind Wardrobe in Cellar of 1800s Home

21 Survival Myths That Will Absolutely Get You Killed

This Clever Solution For A Stuck Screw Is Already In Your Pantry

Map reveals best places to live in the US if nuclear war breaks out

Jennifer Lopez Hits the Red Carpet Solo in an Impeccable Two-Piece Set

Patrick Mahomes responds to Kansas City Chiefs kicker’s controversial graduation speech

Dad Never Forgave Me—I Didn't See Him for 20 Years

What Do Dryer Sheets Do? 9 Genius Ways to Use Them Around the House

'The Voice' finale: Reba McEntire scores victory with soulful powerhouse Asher HaVon

13 Human Foods That Are Good For Your Dog

It’s time to bring back the world’s greatest fighter jet – from the 1990s

Fantasia’s Net Worth Is A Testament To Her Strength And Resilience

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• About Radiation
• Food Irradiation
• Radiation Safety
• Radiation in Your Life
• Radiation and Your Health Features
• Dose Reconstruction

Facts About Radiation from Airport Security Screening

What to know.

When flying in the United States or elsewhere, we are subject to airport security screening. Airport security screening worldwide includes the use of body-scanning units. These units can release low levels of backscatter x-ray ionizing radiation and millimeter wave non-ionizing radiation. In the United States, body scanning units use millimeter wave technology.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses body-scanning units in airports across the United States. These body-scanning units traditionally use millimeter-wave technology.

Millimeter-wave technology uses non-ionizing radiation in the form of low-level radio waves to scan a person's body. A millimeter-wave body scanner uses two antennas that rotate around a person's body. The scanner constructs a 3-D image that resembles a fuzzy photo negative. The image is sent to a remote monitor.

Millimeter-wave technology does not use x-rays and does not add to a person's ionizing radiation dose.

Radiation exposure from airport security screening

The United States uses millimeter-wave technology in airport security scans. This form of technology uses low-energy non-ionizing radiation that releases thousands of times less energy than a cell phone.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has federal authority to set standards for machines that produce radiation, including millimeter-wave security screening systems.

CDC: Radiation from Air Travel

CDC: Non-Ionizing Radiation

NCRP: NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States

Radiation and Your Health

Information about what radiation is and the many sources of radiation in our lives.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

May 21, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

Germicidal lamps using UV-C radiation may pose health safety issues

by Impact Journals LLC

A new research paper titled "Germicidal lamps using UV-C radiation may pose health safety issues: a biomolecular analysis of their effects on apoptosis and senescence" has been published in Aging .

The battle against the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a heightened state of vigilance in global health care, leading to the proliferation of diverse sanitization methods. Among these approaches, germicidal lamps utilizing ultraviolet (UV) rays, particularly UV-C (wavelength ranging from 280 to 100 nm), have gained prominence for domestic use.

These light-emitting diode (LED) lamps are designed to sanitize the air, objects, and surfaces. However, the prevailing concern is that these UV lamps are often introduced into the market without adequate accompanying information to ensure their safe utilization. Importantly, exposure to absorbed UV light can potentially trigger adverse biological responses, encompassing cell death and senescence.

In this new study, researchers Nicola Alessio, Alessia Ambrosino, Andrea Boggi, Domenico Aprile, Iole Pinto, Giovanni Galano, Umberto Galderisi, and Giovanni Di Bernardo from the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Regional Public Health Laboratory in Siena, Italy, ASL Napoli 1 Centro P.S.I. Napoli Est-Barra, and Temple University performed a series of investigations aimed at comprehending the biological repercussions of UV-C radiation exposure from readily available domestic lamps.

"Our focus centered on epithelial retinal cells, keratinocytes, and fibroblasts, components of the skin and ocular targets frequently exposed to UV irradiation," the researchers write.

Their findings underscore the potential harm associated with even brief exposure to UV, leading to irreversible and detrimental alterations in both skin cells and retinal cells of the eye. Notably, epithelial retinal cells exhibited heightened sensitivity, marked by substantial apoptosis. In contrast, keratinocytes demonstrated resilience to apoptosis even at elevated UV doses, though they were prone to senescence. Meanwhile, fibroblasts displayed a gradual amplification of both senescence and apoptosis as radiation doses escalated.

"In summary, despite the potential benefits offered by UV-C in deactivating pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, it remains evident that the concurrent risks posed by UV-C to human health cannot be ignored," the researchers conclude.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers develop experimental mRNA avian flu vaccine

33 minutes ago

Does it matter if your kids listen to you? When adolescents reject mom's advice, it still helps them cope

How family economic insecurity can hurt child mental health

Children exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in womb or as newborns may face increased social and respiratory problems

Investigating self-harm and digital technology overuse in young people with lived mental health experience

Tracking down the genetic causes of lupus to personalize treatment

2 hours ago

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in utero associated with higher odds of metabolic syndrome in children

Tumor mutations may not predict response to immunotherapy, study finds

Researchers decipher mechanisms of liver regeneration

Study shows two neural pathways involved in fentanyl addiction

3 hours ago

Related Stories

Research reports on senescent characteristics of human corneal endothelial cells upon UV-A exposure

Apr 30, 2024

Study: Gene expression signatures of human senescent corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells

Oct 2, 2023

COVID's collateral damage: Germicidal lamps may damage corneas

Nov 25, 2020

Mapping the core senescence phenotype of human colon fibroblasts

Feb 29, 2024

Limiting certain light exposure has potential to prevent inherited retinal dystrophy

May 17, 2024

Study shows virus that causes COVID-19 can penetrate blood-retinal-barrier and could damage vision

May 14, 2024

Recommended for you

Proximity to a cancer center contributes to cancer stage at diagnosis, study finds

20 hours ago

Can diet help with advanced breast cancer? All indications are positive, researchers say

21 hours ago

Urban gardening may improve human health—research subjects benefit from microbial exposure

May 22, 2024

Daily marijuana use outpaces daily drinking in the US, a new study says

Sewage overflows linked to increase in gastrointestinal illnesses

Raising life expectancy for youth with HIV requires more than just adherence to care regimens, researchers say

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter