EMF Health Concerns

What are the health risks from EMF exposure?

Currently, the modern world is ushering in an ubiquitous expansion of wireless technology that are bombarding the environment with a variety of manufactured EMFs which are becoming inescapable. There is a growing body of evidence based on studies, empirical observations, and patient reports which clearly indicate interactions between manufactured EMF exposure and health problems. Health professionals and scientists are especially concerned about the potential health implications for fetuses and children because they are much more vulnerable to health risks from EMF exposure. The science behind EMF exposure and health risks is still evolving, but for the time being, health professionals are recommending taking precautions to reduce EMF exposure when possible, during this period of scientific debate.

Technological innovation has paved the way for human society to develop and thrive like never before in history. However, most people are not aware that manufactured EMF radiation powers this technology and enables wireless communications. Every day people are exposed to artificial forms of EMF radiation which permeates everywhere in the environment. Despite EMF radiation from technology being invisible to the naked eye, it is not harmless. The consensus among scientists is still developing, but currently there are many credible studies reporting health problems and diseases associated with manufactured EMF exposure. Many health professionals and scientists are calling for more research to verify and expand on the current evidence of health risks potentially caused by manufactured EMF exposure.

Research studies of manufactured EMF exposure involve cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, autoimmune disorders, and fertility issues in both males and females. EMF exposure from wireless technology is commonly associated with hypersensitivity symptoms that cause sleep disturbances, nausea, headaches, dizziness, and depression. Some alarming studies using cellphones on pregnant animals have shown evidence in offspring for associations with neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD and autism. Many emerging studies on health risks from manufactured EMF exposure are proposing a much greater potential risk for fetuses and children while the central nervous system and immune system are still developing.

EMF pollution in the environment should be taken seriously by current and expecting parents since there are no public safety standards in place to protect fetuses or children from dangerous exposure limits. Although the health risks are still being explored, it is important that parents are aware that there is a consensus among world health experts that EMF radiation from wireless technology is possibly cancerous. Currently, the World Health Organization classifies cellphone radiation as “possibly carcinogen” (Class 2B). A category also belonging to lead, gasoline, engine exhausts, and chloroform. New wireless technologies and applications are hastily introduced to the public without any certainty about potential health effects, raising new challenges for the medical community and society.

References:

Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Scientific reports, 2(1), 1-8.

Bas, O., Odaci, E., Kaplan, S., Acer, N., Ucok, K., & Colakoglu, S. (2009). 900 MHz electromagnetic field exposure affects qualitative and quantitative features of hippocampal pyramidal cells in the adult female rat. Brain Research, 1265, 178-185.

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belpomme, D., & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research, 113374.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Carpenter, D. O. (2010). Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing nothing. Reviews on environmental health, 25(1), 75-80.

Gherardini, L., Ciuti, G., Tognarelli, S., & Cinti, C. (2014). Searching for the perfect wave: the effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cells. International journal of molecular sciences, 15(4), 5366-5387.

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters, 20(4), 1-1.

Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 62(2), 104-109.

Irigaray, P., Caccamo, D., & Belpomme, D. (2018). Oxidative stress in electrohypersensitivity self-reporting patients: Results of a prospective in vivo investigation with comprehensive molecular analysis. International journal of molecular medicine, 42(4), 1885-1898.

Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40.

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Moon, J. H. (2020). Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and experimental pediatrics, 63(11), 422.

Odaci, E., Mollaoglu, H., & Kaplan, S. Chronic prenatal exposure to the 900-megahertz electromagnetic field induces pyramidal cell loss in the hippocampus of...

Othman, H., Ammari, M., Sakly, M., & Abdelmelek, H. (2017). Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45 GHz) on postnatal development and behavior in rat: influence of maternal restraint. Behavioural brain research, 326, 291-302.

Seomun, G., Lee, J., & Park, J. (2021). Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 16(5), e0251628.

Why are fetuses and children more vulnerable to EMF exposure?

Many studies show that fetuses and children are more venerable to manufactured EMFs than adults. According to American Academy of Pediatrics “children are disproportionally affected by environmental exposures including cellphone radiation.” Children absorb more energy from EMF exposure because their bodies are more conductive with higher moisture and ionic content than adults. Also, children’s brains are more exposed than adults because their brain tissue is more absorbent, and their skulls are thinner.

The exponential expansion of modern technology and applications has led to an unfamiliar environment where artificially produced EMF radiation permeates the air and is inescapable. Nowadays children are constantly being exposed to new forms of manufactured EMFs both indoors and outdoors. Most scientists agree that environmental insults from pollution on the early growth stages of children can have profound impacts later in life. The most critical period of child development for brain cell production begins during gestation through the early postnatal period where essential connections are made throughout the brain. In the current era of technology, children are exposed to EMF radiation as a form of environmental pollution over a longer lifetime than earlier generations ever were. This has major potential health risk implications for children now because their nervous and immune systems are in the development process. Although well-designed case control studies are lacking, it can be assumed that existing laboratory evidence should be compelling enough to convince parents to take precautions to reduce EMF exposure to children and pregnant women. As stated by Dr. Huge Taylor, Yale Chief of OBGYN, “There is no downside to being cautious.”

References:

Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Scientific reports, 2(1), 1-8.

Bektas, H., Dasdag, S., & Bektas, M.S. (2020). Comparison of effects of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and mobile phone exposure on human placenta and cord blood. Biotechnology & Equipment, 34(1), 154-162.

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Christ, A., Gosselin, M. C., Christopoulou, M., Kühn, S., & Kuster, N. (2010). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 55(7), 1767.

Collet, L., Jenlis, A. B., Khorsi-Cauet, H., Naudot, M., Djekkoun, N., Ghamlouch, H., ... & Marolleau, J. P. (2022). 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields Induce Microbiota Dysbiosis and Adaptive Immune System Disorders in Juvenile Rats.

Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., De Salles, A. A. A., & Davis, D. L. (2015). Dosimetric simulations of brain absorption of mobile phone radiation–the relationship between psSAR and age. IEEE Access, 3, 2425-2430.

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Moon, J. H. (2020). Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and experimental pediatrics, 63(11), 422.

Morgan, L. L., Kesari, S., & Davis, D. L. (2014). Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, 2(4), 197-204.

Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research, 164, 405-416.

Why are current safety standards insufficient for fetuses and children?

Existing safety standards for wireless technology are simulated on synthetic tissues modeled after full grown adults. Currently, regulators have no special consideration for the brains or bodies of fetuses and children when setting safety standards. On the other hand, independent studies are reporting evidence of potential harm to fetuses’ and children’s health associated with EMF exposure from wireless technology. Although scientific consensus is still evolving, health experts are calling on the precautionary principal for limiting EMF exposure especially for children and pregnant women.

Alarmingly, children and pregnant women are not given special consideration by regulators when setting legal safety standards for wireless devices. Fetuses and children are wrongfully assumed to have the same anatomy as adults when testing wireless technologies. On the contrary, studies on baby models show EMF absorption from cellphones measured up to three times higher in subregions of the brain and ten times higher in bone marrow. In addition, many studies have even report biological disturbances and effects for fetuses and young children at exposure levels that are well within the current legal limits of most nations. Therefore, the authorities appointed to set safety standards for the technology industry are ignoring credible science and acting negligently by ignoring the risk to fetuses and children.

Government agencies base safety standards on studies of short-term use of single devices. There are a multitude of transmission antennae and wireless devices constantly sending and receiving signals, so there is no such thing as EMF exposure from single sources. Also, each device is associated with wireless activity which emits its own EMF frequencies. So, when around multiple sources a variety of EMF frequencies is bombarding one frequency. Researchers have shown the combination of multiple EMF sources have cumulative biological effects which exacerbates health risks.

Health effects recognized by government agencies testing wireless technologies is widely criticized by health experts worldwide. Currently, authorities use procedures concerning a “thermal” paradigm while ignoring all other potential hazards associated with EMF exposure. The potential “non-thermal” and long-term biological effects of manufactured EMF exposure is not considered despite overwhelming evidence. In fact, many credible researchers have published peer-reviewed evidence showing multitudes of potential long-term biological health risks which have been reported to authorities. All those reports are ignored by government agencies because they do not reflect the paradigm established decades ago.

References:

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Blank, M. (2012). The cellular stress response: EMF-DNA interaction. Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group. Section7.

Fernández-Rodríguez, C. E., De Salles, A. A. A., & Davis, D. L. (2015). Dosimetric simulations of brain absorption of mobile phone radiation–the relationship between psSAR and age. IEEE Access, 3, 2425-2430.

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters, 20(4), 1-1.

Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 62(2), 104-109.

Matthew, U. O., & Kazaure, J. S. (2021). Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra-high frequency. Health and Technology, 11(2), 305-317.

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Moon, J. H. (2020). Health effects of electromagnetic fields on children. Clinical and experimental pediatrics, 63(11), 422.

Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research, 164, 405-416.

Seomun, G., Lee, J., & Park, J. (2021). Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 16(5), e0251628.

How does EMF affect biology?

The human body acts like a transceiver antenna that absorbs EMF radiation waves and converts them into electrical currents. Thermal effects from manufactured EMFs can have immediate effects by heating tissue / organs and damaging living cells. Non-thermal effects have been shown at exceptionally low levels of EMF exposure which leads to biochemical stress that can damage cells and DNA. Over-exposure to sources of manufactured EMFs such as wireless devices can stress the body and brain which throws it out of balance and leads to health and psychological problems especially during the developmental stages of growth.

Many researchers have posited that a variety diseases and behavioral problems can be attributed to manufactured EMFs. Biological effects from manufactured EMF exposure vary in nature and degree depending on the distance from the emitting source of EMF in conjunction with frequency type and intensity of the EMF waves. Many studies report that the electrical signals from EMFs interact at the surface of cells where the cell membrane can detect, amplify, and transduce signals to the cell interior. When cell membranes are compromised, they become leaky and disrupt the cellular communication and processes. Electrical signals from manufactured EMFs can interfere with living cells via voltage-gated calcium channels on the cell membrane. This can cause leakage that overloads the interior of cells, causing free radicals and excessive oxidative stress. The DNA in our cells respond by breaking strands to activate proteins called heat-shock proteins which deal with the stress overload and can damage and mutate genes. When genes mutate, they can cause mitochondrial dysfunctions that effects the metabolism and energy of cells. The cumulative effect at the cellular level creates an inflammatory response in the body which causes dysfunction to the immune system and creates an array of health complications.

Established science widely recognizes thermal effects to biology caused by EMF exposure from technology. Thermal effects on the brain such as mild to severe tissue damage have been widely observed by scientists. It is well established in the medical field that a one-degree increase of temperature inside the head causes a temporary leakage of the blood / brain barrier. This leakage allows for neurotoxins, inflammatory cytokines, and infectious agents to run amok and trigger an immune response which causes inflammation in the brain.

Non-thermal biological effects of manufactured EMFs are usually attributed to the vicious cycle created by oxidative stress leading to an overaccumulation of free radicals and diminished antioxidant capacity which will eventually lead to cell death. Researchers have shown that overexposure to EMFs from technologies can trigger cascading effects to cells throughout the body that can lead to an array of potential health problems. For example, laboratory studies have shown evidence of cell damage in the brain from non-thermal effects. Long-term EMF exposure to fetuses and young children can be very damaging to their brain during development because they are in the process of making vital connections between brain cell networks. The adverse health implications found so far for non-thermal biological effects should be taken seriously especially when dealing with pregnancy and young children due to the risks not yet fully understood. In this time of scientific uncertainty, it is important to be aware of the biological risks presented by EMFs from technology.

References:

Belpomme, D., Carlo, G. L., Irigaray, P., Carpenter, D. O., Hardell, L., Kundi, M., ... & Vorst, A. V. (2021). The critical importance of molecular biomarkers and imaging in the study of electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(14), 7321.

Belpomme, D., & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research, 113374.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Blank, M. (2012). The cellular stress response: EMF-DNA interaction. Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group. Section7.

Collet, L., Jenlis, A. B., Khorsi-Cauet, H., Naudot, M., Djekkoun, N., Ghamlouch, H., ... & Marolleau, J. P. (2022). 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields Induce Microbiota Dysbiosis and Adaptive Immune System Disorders in Juvenile Rats.

Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International journal of hygiene and environmental health, 221(3), 367-375.

Gherardini, L., Ciuti, G., Tognarelli, S., & Cinti, C. (2014). Searching for the perfect wave: the effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cells. International journal of molecular sciences, 15(4), 5366-5387.

Gye, M. C., & Park, C. J. (2012). Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system. Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 39(1), 1.

Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 62(2), 104-109.

Irigaray, P., Caccamo, D., & Belpomme, D. (2018). Oxidative stress in electrohypersensitivity self-reporting patients: Results of a prospective in vivo investigation with comprehensive molecular analysis. International journal of molecular medicine, 42(4), 1885-1898.

Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40.

Matthew, U. O., & Kazaure, J. S. (2021). Chemical polarization effects of electromagnetic field radiation from the novel 5G network deployment at ultra-high frequency. Health and Technology, 11(2), 305-317.

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Moskowitz, J. (2017). 5G wireless technology: millimeter wave health effects. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, 3, 3-6.

Pall, M. L. (2015). How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects of microwave radiation from electrical devices. Int. J. Innov. Res Eng. Manag (IJIREM), 2(5), 71-76.

Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research, 164, 405-416.

Pall, M. L. (2021). Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics. Reviews on Environmental Health.

Saliev, T., Begimbetova, D., Masoud, A. R., & Matkarimov, B. (2019). Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Two sides of a coin. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 141, 25-36.

Stein, Y. (2021). Preventive measures to reduce harmful effects produced by electromagnetic radiation on health. Health Risk Analysis, (3), 42-53.

How does EMF affect fertility?

Recent studies have revealed an association between manufactured EMF exposure and miscarriages, shorter pregnancy duration, and increased risk of preterm birth. Miscarriage has been associated with excessive use of wireless devices, living in urban / city areas, having a residence within one hundred meters of a mobile phone base station or high voltage power lines, electrical appliances and devices, and medical equipment for diagnosis and treatment.

The use of modern technologies by pregnant women are rapidly increasing which puts their embryos and fetuses at greater risk due to increased exposure to manufactured EMF radiation. EMF exposure can cause upsurges in free radical load in the uterus and ovaries which leads to problems in cell growth and DNA disruptions. There is evidence from animal studies that show adverse effects to reproductive endocrine hormones, the gonadal function, the process of embryogenesis, and decreases in ovarian reserve due to manufactured EMF exposure. In addition, it can cause disorder in mitotic divisions and damage to cellular proteins. Other evidence shows that biochemical interaction in the cell membrane can be affected where a reduction in the permeability in cell membranes can lead to a decrease in cellular connections in embryos and fetuses. Some reports also show that EMF from cellphones can damage the placental barrier which is responsible for preventing the transfer of substances between blood. Fertility problems for pregnant women caused by technology are not well understood at this time. Many health professionals are urging pregnant women to reduce exposure to manufactured EMFs.

References:

Abad, M., Malekafzali, H., Simbar, M., Mosaavi, H. S., & Khoei, E. M. (2016). Association between electromagnetic field exposure and abortion in pregnant women living in Tehran. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine, 14(5), 347.

Asghari, A., Khaki, A. A., Rajabzadeh, A., & Khaki, A. (2016). A review on ElectroBellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Ebadi, A., Pournorouz, H., Aghajanpour Mir, S. S., Raisian, M., Ghobadi, M., Habibian, T., & Valian, Z. (2020). Relationship between the Exposure to Magnetic Fields during Pregnancy and Risk of Abortion: A Review Article. International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(8), 11813-11818.

Esmailzadeh, S., Delavar, M. A., Aleyassin, A., Gholamian, S. A., & Ahmadi, A. (2019). Exposure to electromagnetic fields of high voltage overhead power lines and female infertility. The international journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 10(1), 11.

Ghazanfarpour, M., Kashani, Z. A., Pakzad, R., Abdi, F., Rahnemaei, F. A., Akbari, P. A., & Roozbeh, N. (2021). Effect of electromagnetic field on abortion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Medicine, 16(1), 1628-1641.

Gye, M. C., & Park, C. J. (2012). Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system. Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 39(1), 1.

Jangid, P., Rai, U., Sharma, R. S., & Singh, R. (2022). The role of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on female fertility: A review. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 1-16.

Karimi, A., Ghadiri Moghaddam, F., & Valipour, M. (2020). Insights in the biology of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields exposure on human health. Molecular Biology Reports, 47(7), 5621-5633.

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Othman, H., Ammari, M., Sakly, M., & Abdelmelek, H. (2017). Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45 GHz) on postnatal development and behavior in rat: influence of maternal restraint. Behavioural brain research, 326, 291-302.

Tsarna, E., Reedijk, M., Birks, L. E., Guxens, M., Ballester, F., Ha, M., ... & Vermeulen, R. (2019). Associations of maternal cell-phone use during pregnancy with pregnancy duration and fetal growth in four birth cohorts. American journal of epidemiology, 188(7), 1270-1280.

How is EMF associated with cancer?

Since 2001, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that non-ionizing EMFs are a carcinogen (Group 2B) – a group also reserved for lead, welding fumes, and engine exhaust. Recently the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) has conducted extensive rodent toxicology and carcinogenesis studies for cellphone radiation have showed evidence of increased risk of tumors associated with heavy usage. The concern of cancer is greater for young children because they are subjected to exponentially more EMFs from technology over a longer period.

It has long been established that ionizing radiation (high energy EMF) such as x-rays and gamma rays have enough energy to beak chemical bonds in the body and lead to increased risk of cancer and birth defects. There is also debate among scientists as to whether low-level EMF frequencies have enough energy to cause disease. Low-level EMFs come from high voltage powerlines to the common household in the form of electrical wiring, appliances, and electronic devices. This type of energy generates powerful magnetic fields that can penetrate deep into the body. Prenatal exposure to such energy can adversely impact fetal development. In 1979 it was revealed that powerlines were presumed to generate elevated magnetic fields from low-level EMF in homes which can result in disease. This hypothesis was confirmed later by multiple investigations which show a strong correlation between elevated magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer.

EMF exposure from wireless technology is believed by many researchers to pose higher risk of cancer; this theory remains highly controversial. However, biological mechanisms triggering stress reactions on cells from manufactured EMFs is well documented. Additionally, it is well recognized by medical researchers that long-term, persistent stress on the cells increases the risk of cancer. Still, scientists are reluctant to draw definitive conclusions for EMF induced stress based on similar correlations from toxic stress caused by other known carcinogens. However, recent credible studies on cellphones have observed elevations in rates of brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (cancer of inner ear) on the side of the head where individuals use their cellphone. Although a consensus among scientists is still developing, there are large implications for young people who begin using wireless technology at earlier ages than previous generations. Since scientists are still working to establish clear explanations for their observations, they are calling on parents and individuals to take precautions.

References:

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Blank, M. (2012). The cellular stress response: EMF-DNA interaction. Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group. Section7.

Carpenter, D. O. (2010). Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing nothing. Reviews on environmental health, 25(1), 75-80.

Carpenter, D. O. (2019). Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results. Environmental research, 178, 108688.

Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International journal of hygiene and environmental health, 221(3), 367-375.

Green, L. M., Miller, A. B., Agnew, D. A., Greenberg, M. L., Li, J., Villeneuve, P. J., & Tibshirani, R. (1999). Childhood leukemia and personal monitoring of residential exposures to electric and magnetic fields in Ontario, Canada. Cancer Causes & Control, 10(3), 233-243.

Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy, 62(2), 104-109.

Kundi, C. C. L. D. (2007). SECTION 11 EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA).

Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 223.

Saliev, T., Begimbetova, D., Masoud, A. R., & Matkarimov, B. (2019). Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields: Two sides of a coin. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 141, 25-36.

Seomun, G., Lee, J., & Park, J. (2021). Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 16(5), e0251628.

Wyde, M., Cesta, M., Blystone, C., Elmore, S., Foster, P., Hooth, M., ... & Bucher, J. (2018). Report of partial findings from the national toxicology program carcinogenesis studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (whole body exposures). BioRxiv, 055699.

Zhao, L., Liu, X., Wang, C., Yan, K., Lin, X., Li, S., ... & Liu, X. (2014). Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leukemia research, 38(3), 269-274.

How is EMF associated with ADHD?

A review conducted by U.S. Air Force Materiel Command concluded that “behavior may be the most sensitive biological component of RF / microwave radiation (includes cellphones).” Credible studies on EMF exposure to pregnant rodents have reported altered behavior in offspring showing hyperactivity and diminished memory which is consistent with ADHD symptoms.

Recent studies have reported EMF exposure from wireless technology during pregnancy can impact the fetal brain development and may cause neurodevelopmental disorders like Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Currently there is not enough evidence to prove a direct causal relationship between manufactured EMFs and ADHD, but there is enough evidence from animal studies to show a strong correlation. Research studies out of Yale University on pregnant rodents show EMF from wireless devices impaired offspring neurodevelopment in the postnatal period. In those studies, offspring from EMF-exposed rodents possessed behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and impaired memory due to cell damage in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. In addition, similar studies done from cellphone radiation show brain cell death in the hippocampus which is the brain region associated with short term memory and learning. Current evidence should be sufficient to alert expecting and current parents that they must take precautions to reduce the amount of EMF exposure to their children from wireless devices.

References:

Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X. B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Scientific reports, 2(1), 1-8.

Bas, O., Odaci, E., Mollaoglu, H., Ucok, K., & Kaplan, S. (2009). Chronic prenatal exposure to the 900-megahertz electromagnetic field induces pyramidal cell loss in the hippocampus of newborn rats. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 25(6), 377-384.

Bas, O., Odaci, E., Kaplan, S., Acer, N., Ucok, K., & Colakoglu, S. (2009). 900 MHz electromagnetic field exposure affects qualitative and quantitative features of hippocampal pyramidal cells in the adult female rat. Brain Research, 1265, 178-185.

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Djordjvich, D. (2015). Electromagnetic Fields and Speech Problems. Speech and Language 2015, 101.

Odaci, E., Bas, O., & Kaplan, S. (2008). Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain research, 1238, 224-229.

Othman, H., Ammari, M., Sakly, M., & Abdelmelek, H. (2017). Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45 GHz) on postnatal development and behavior in rat: influence of maternal restraint. Behavioural brain research, 326, 291-302.

Othman, H., Ammari, M., Rtibi, K., Bensaid, N., Sakly, M., & Abdelmelek, H. (2017). Postnatal development and behavior effects of in-utero exposure of rats to radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional WiFi devices. Environmental toxicology and pharmacology, 52, 239-247.

How is EMF associated with autism?

There has been a dramatic rise in autism in the past few decades. Some scientists propose an association to the parallel trend of increased manufactured EMFs. Also, documented biological and physiological effects of EMF exposure are consistent with altered cellular, immune, and neurological systems found in autistic individuals. Direct causality cannot be determined at this time, but there is enough evidence to show an alarming correlation between EMF exposure and autism demands showing precaution to EMF exposure.

Currently most health professionals are baffled by what causes and perpetuates autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The inability of the medical community to understand this condition is alarming given the twentyfold rise in ASD cases in the past few decades. ASD is often considered a neurodevelopmental disorder where brain development is disrupted by genetic abnormalities and pollutants in the environment. Currently, some scientists acknowledge that genetic factors cannot account for most ASD cases so they must be linked to the environment. Many laboratory studies have demonstrated neurotoxic effects on the brain caused by EMF exposure from wireless devices. Other known neurotoxins such as pesticides do not share as strong of a relationship and parallel trend as EMF proliferation and the rise in ASD cases. In fact since mercury has been eliminated from vaccines, there are no other identifiable trends except for EMF pollution that can account for such dramatic changes in the environment.

Numerous researchers are starting to draw attention to the biological and physiological reactions to EMF exposure that closely parallel disruptions seen in autistic individuals. Many laboratory studies have shown the same biological and physiological responses to EMF exposure that coincides with factors seen in ASD cases. For example, immune disturbances including inflammation from mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress. Other common associations between EMF exposure and ASD are melatonin dysregulation (circadian rhythms, cellular and DNA protection, mitochondrial function, etc..), electrophysiology distresses (seizures, sleep disturbance, functional disorders, etc.) and leaky biological barriers. A leaky blood / brain barrier can allow toxins into the brain and cause neuroinflammation which subsequently kills brain cells during the most crucial period of brain development when the brain is making essential connections. Thus, failure to temporally integrate information across wide regions of the brain during development is strongly associated with the effects of both EMF exposure and ASD.

Electrohypersensitivity is often considered an allergy to excessive EMF exposure which shares common symptoms to allergic responses in autistic individuals. For example, ASD is often attributed to problems with cognition, mood, behavior, sleep, immune and gastrointestinal function that manifest in a variety of physiological symptoms also found in people with electrohypersensitivity. The parallel symptoms between ASD and Electrohypersensitivity is so similar it has some scientists purposing they are both related. Granted, even though current science cannot pinpoint a cause of ASD, the commonalities with electrohypersensitive individuals should not be ignored.

References:

Ahuja, Y. R., Sharma, S., & Bahadur, B. (2013). Autism: An epigenomic side-effect of excessive exposure to electromagnetic fields. International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 5(4), 171-177.

Alsaeed, I., Al-Somali, F., Sakhnini, L., Aljarallah, O. S., Hamdan, R. M., Bubishate, S. A., ... & Kamal, A. (2014). Autism-relevant social abnormalities in mice exposed perinatally to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 37, 58-64.

Ann, J. Electromagnetic Radiation and Environmental Factors in Autism.

Bellieni, C. V., & Pinto, I. (2012). Fetal and neonatal effects of EMF. BioInitiative Report Section, 19.

Belpomme, D., & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research, 113374.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Carlo, G. L., & Mariea, T. J. (2007). Wireless radiation in the aetiology and treatment of autism: clinical observations and mechanisms. Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, 26(2), 3-7.

Djordjvich, D. (2015). Electromagnetic Fields and Speech Problems. Speech and Language 2015, 101.

Herbert, M. R., & Sage, C. (2013). Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link–Part I. Pathophysiology, 20(3), 191-209.

Herbert, M. R., & Sage, C. (2013). Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology, 20(3), 211-234.

Herbert, M., & Sage, C. (2012). Findings in autism (ASD) consistent with electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR). BioInitiative Report: A rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for low-intensity electromagnetic radiation.

Kane, R. C. (2004). A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Medical hypotheses, 62(2), 195-197.

Pall, M. L. (2015). How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects of microwave radiation from electrical devices. Int. J. Innov. Res Eng. Manag (IJIREM), 2(5), 71-76.

Posar, A., & Visconti, P. (2014). To what extent do environmental factors contribute to the occurrence of autism spectrum disorders? Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences, 9, 297.

Sonmez, O. F., Odaci, E., Bas, O., & Kaplan, S. (2010). Purkinje cell number decreases in the adult female rat cerebellum following exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field. Brain research, 1356, 95-101.

Weeks, B. S. Autism and Electrical Pollution.

Zarei, S., Vahab, M., Oryadi-Zanjani, M. M., Alighanbari, N., & Mortazavi, S. M. (2019). Mother’s exposure to electromagnetic fields before and during pregnancy is associated with risk of speech problems in offspring. Journal of Biomedical Physics & Engineering, 9(1), 61.

What is Electrohypersensitivity?

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is described as “a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electromagnetic fields.” The symptoms often recognized are headaches, cognitive problems, lightheadedness / vertigo, anxiety / depression / mood swings, heart palpitations, rashes / skin eruptions, tingling / burning sensations, involuntary muscle movements, fatigue, weakened immune system / susceptibility to infections, body aches, nausea, insomnia, vision problems, and tinnitus.

EHS is a highly debated subject in recent times due to the dramatic increase of cases over the last thirty years that coincides with the proliferation of wireless technology. EHS is a highly disruptive and debilitating condition causing severe physical and emotional pain that can result in catastrophic life circumstances. The symptoms for EHS usually start to occur occasionally but can increase over time. EHS symptoms usually go away after removal or avoidance of EMF emissions. Many patients experience full recovery shortly after being removed from the EMF stimulus. Although EHS can be treated by removing EMF sources, it can often result in social isolation, loss of livelihood, and / or home.

EHS is not widely acknowledged by many doctors in the U.S. and abroad at this time due to the lack of a scientific consensus pinpointing EMF exposure as the cause. Most doctors confronted by EHS symptoms often diagnose patients with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) since both present similar symptoms despite differing in many ways. Many skeptics are proposing the current gap in clinical and biological criteria for justification to assume millions of people are psychologically manifesting symptoms (nocebo effect). On the other hand, there are thousands of studies that show adverse biological effects from EMF exposure. In addition, many health scientists now consider EHS “a true objective somatic disorder” that can be diagnosed and treated using brain imaging and biomarkers in blood and urine. Currently, EHS is increasingly being recognized in other countries by health authorities and professionals in areas such as disability administrators / case workers, politicians, and courts of law. Those professionals are honoring their duty to acknowledge EHS cases so immediate prevention or compensation can be addressed to those afflicted. There is reason to believe that children are more sensitive and vulnerable to potential EHS affliction, so precautionary measures should be taken.

References:

Belpomme, D., & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research, 113374.

Belpomme, D., Carlo, G. L., Irigaray, P., Carpenter, D. O., Hardell, L., Kundi, M., ... & Vorst, A. V. (2021). The critical importance of molecular biomarkers and imaging in the study of electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(14), 7321.

Belpomme, D., & Irigaray, P. (2020). Electrohypersensitivity as a newly identified and characterized neurologic pathological disorder: How to diagnose, treat, and prevent it. International journal of molecular sciences, 21(6), 1915.

Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Thill, R. (2016). EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.

Hardell, L., & Koppel, T. (2022). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations–a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Reviews on Environmental Health.

Irigaray, P., Caccamo, D., & Belpomme, D. (2018). Oxidative stress in electrohypersensitivity self-reporting patients: Results of a prospective in vivo investigation with comprehensive molecular analysis. International journal of molecular medicine, 42(4), 1885-1898.

Stein, Y. Symptoms reported by Electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients–first-year summary from a specialized Pain Research Clinic. Brain, 14, 74.

Stein, Y. (2021). Preventive measures to reduce harmful effects produced by electromagnetic radiation on health. Health Risk Analysis, (3), 42-53.

Watch these videos on health risks from EMF exposure!

Continue Learning More!

What is EMF

What is EMF

Continue Learning More!

How Shielding Works

How Shielding Works

Don’t Miss Out!

GET 10% OFF OF YOUR FIRST PURCHASE

Get the latest on Sales, Special Offers, New Releases and more