The Conspiracy Wiki

The Cellphone conspiracy concerns the effects of mobile phone radiation on human health, a worlwide concern during the enormous increase of mobile phone usage throughout the world. As of 2016, there were 7.4 billion subscriptions worldwide, though the actual number of users is lower as many users own multiple mobile phones.[1] Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range (450–2100 MHz). Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.

In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phone radiation as Group 2BTemplate:Snd possibly carcinogenic (not Group 2ATemplate:Snd probably carcinogenicTemplate:Snd nor the dangerous Group 1). That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted.[2] The WHO added in June 2011 that "to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use",[3] a point they reiterated in October 2014.[4] Some national radiation advisory authorities[5] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.


Many scientific studies have investigated possible health symptoms of mobile phone radiation. These studies are periodically reviewed by scientific committees to assess overall risks. A 2007 assessment published by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)[6] concluded that the three lines of evidence, viz. animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies, indicate that "exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans".

Radiation absorption[]

Part of the radio waves emitted by a mobile telephone handset are absorbed by the body. The radio waves emitted by a GSM handset are typically below a watt.[7] The maximum power output from a mobile phone is regulated by the mobile phone standard and by the regulatory agencies in each country. In most systems the cellphone and the base station check reception quality and signal strength and the power level is increased or decreased automatically, within a certain span, to accommodate different situations, such as inside or outside of buildings and vehicles.[8] The rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body is measured by the specific absorption rate (SAR), and its maximum levels for modern handsets have been set by governmental regulating agencies in many countries. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set a SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 1 gram of tissue, for the head. In Europe, the limit is 2 W/kg, averaged over a volume of 10 grams of tissue. SAR values are heavily dependent on the size of the averaging volume. Without information about the averaging volume used, comparisons between different measurements cannot be made. Thus, the European 10-gram ratings should be compared among themselves, and the American 1-gram ratings should only be compared among themselves. SAR data for specific mobile phones, along with other useful information, can be found directly on manufacturers' websites, as well as on third party web sites.[9] It is worth noting that thermal radiation is not comparable to ionizing radiation in that it only increases the temperature in normal matter, it does not break molecular bonds or release electrons from their atoms.

Thermal effects[]

Microwave radiation causes dielectric heating, in which any dielectric material (such as living tissue) is heated by rotations of polar molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. For a person using a cell phone, most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. The level of temperature increase is an order of magnitude less than that obtained during exposure to direct sunlight. The brain's blood circulation is capable of disposing of excess heat by increasing local blood flow.

The cornea of the eye does not have such a temperature regulation mechanism and exposure of 2–3 hours duration at SAR values from 100–140 W/kg produced lenticular temperatures of 41 °C in rabbits' eyes and led to the formation of cataracts. There were no cataracts detected in the eyes of monkeys exposed under similar conditions.[10] The power output of mobile phones is considerably lower and such premature cataracts have not been linked with cell phone use.

Non-thermal effects[]

The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. The effect of these modulations compared with simple RF thermic effects is subject to debate.[11]

Some researchers have argued that so-called "non-thermal effects" could be reinterpreted as a normal cellular response to an increase in temperature. The German biophysicist Roland Glaser, for example,[12] has argued that there are several thermoreceptor molecules in cells, and that they activate a cascade of second and third messenger systems, gene expression mechanisms and production of heat shock proteins in order to defend the cell against metabolic cell stress caused by heat. The increases in temperature that cause these changes are too small to be detected by studies such as REFLEX, which base their whole argument on the apparent stability of thermal equilibrium in their cell cultures.

Other researchers believe the stress proteins are unrelated to thermal effects, since they occur for both extremely low frequencies (ELF) and radio frequencies (RF), which have very different energy levels.[13] Another preliminary study published in 2011 by The Journal of the American Medical Association conducted using fluorodeoxyglucose injections and positron emission tomography concluded that exposure to radiofrequency signal waves within parts of the brain closest to the cell phone antenna resulted in increased levels of glucose metabolism, but the clinical significance of this finding is unknown.[14][15]

Blood–brain barrier effects[]

Swedish researchers from Lund University (Salford, Brun, Persson, Eberhardt, and Malmgren) have studied the effects of microwave radiation on the rat brain. They found a leakage of albumin into the brain via a permeated blood–brain barrier.[16][17] This confirms earlier work on the blood–brain barrier by Allan Frey, Oscar and Hawkins, and Albert and Kerns.[18] Other groups have not confirmed these findings in vitro cell studies[19] or whole animal studies,[18]Template:Rp[20]

Prof Leszczynski of Finland's radiation and nuclear safety authority found that, at the maximum legal limit for mobile radiation, one protein in particular, HSP 27, was affected. HSP 27 played a critical role in the integrity of the blood-brain barrier.[21]

Cancers to humans[]

Template:Medref In 2006, a large Danish group's study about the connection between mobile phone use and cancer incidence was published. It followed over 420,000 Danish citizens for 20 years and showed no increased risk of cancer.[22] A 2011 follow-up confirmed these findings.[23]

The following studies of long time exposure have been published:

  • The 13 nation INTERPHONE projectTemplate:Snd the largest study of its kind ever undertaken – was published in 2010 and did not find a solid link between mobile phones and brain tumours.[24]

The International Journal of Epidemiology published[25] a combined data analysis from INTERPHONE, a multi national population-based case-control study of glioma and meningioma, the most common types of brain tumour.

The authors reported the following conclusion:

Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.

In the press release[26] accompanying the release of the paper, Dr. Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said:

An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited.

A number of independent health and government authorities have commented on this important study including The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) which said in a statement that:[27]

Until now there have been concerns that mobile phones were causing increases in brain tumours. Interphone is both large and rigorous enough to address this claim, and it has not provided any convincing scientific evidence of an association between mobile phone use and the development of glioma or meningioma. While the study demonstrates some weak evidence of an association with the highest tenth of cumulative call time (but only in those who started mobile phone use most recently), the authors conclude that biases and errors limit the strength of any conclusions in this group. It now seems clear that if there was an effect of mobile phone use on brain tumour risks in adults, this is likely to be too small to be detectable by even a large multinational study of the size of Interphone.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) which said in a statement that:

On the basis of current understanding of the relationship between brain cancer and use of mobile phones, including the recently published data from the INTERPHONE study, ARPANSA:

concludes that currently available data do not warrant any general recommendation to limit use of mobile phones in the adult population,

continues to inform those concerned about potential health effects that they may limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting; and

recommends that, due to the lack of any data relating to children and long term use of mobile phones, parents encourage their children to limit their exposure by reducing call time, by making calls where reception is good, by using hands-free devices or speaker options, or by texting.

The Cancer Council Australia said in a statement that it cautiously welcomed the results of the largest international study to date into mobile phone use, which has found no evidence that normal use of mobile phones, for a period up to 12 years, can cause brain cancer.

Chief Executive Officer, Professor Ian Olver, said findings from the Interphone study, conducted across 13 countries including Australia, were consistent with other research that had failed to find a link between mobile phones and cancer.

This supports previous research showing mobile phones don’t damage cell DNA, meaning they can’t cause the type of genetic mutations that develop into cancer,” Professor Olver said.

However, it has been suggested that electromagnetic fields associated with mobile phones may play a role in speeding up the development of an existing cancer. The Interphone study found no evidence to support this theory.

  • A Danish study (2004) that took place over 10 years found no evidence to support a link. However, this study has been criticized for collecting data from subscriptions and not necessarily from actual users. It is known that some subscribers do not use the phones themselves but provide them for family members to use. That this happens is supported by the observation that only 61% of a small sample of the subscribers reported use of mobile phones when responding to a questionnaire.[22][28]
  • A Swedish study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma."[29]
  • A British study (2005) that draws the conclusion that "The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."[30]
  • A German study (2006) that states "In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn."[31]
  • A joint study conducted in northern Europe that draws the conclusion that "Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."[32]

Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:

  • A Swedish scientific team at the Karolinska Institute conducted an epidemiological study (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a type of benign brain tumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.[33]
  • The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meningioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overall odds ratio (OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.[34]

In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:[35]

  • Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
  • Cell phone use was linked to a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
  • Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
  • One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.

In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long-term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.’[36] Template:Wikinews

A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages.[37] A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.[38] In 2009, a meta-analysis of 23 studies on mobile phone use and tumor risk found that "there is possible evidence" that mobile phone use causes an increased risk of tumors.[39]

In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that the induction period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk."[40]

On 31 May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The IARC assessed and evaluated available literature and studies about the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), and found the evidence to be "limited for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure". The conclusion of the IARC was mainly based on the INTERPHONE study, which found an increased risk for glioma in the highest category of heavy users (30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period), although no increased risk was found at lower exposure and other studies could not back up the findings. The evidence for other types of cancer was found to be "inadequate". Some members of the Working Group opposed the conclusions and considered the current evidence in humans still as "inadequate", citing inconsistencies between the assessed studies.[2][41]

In 2011, a review published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that increasing evidence suggests that mobile phone use does not cause brain tumors in adults.[42]

In 2012, a systematic review was published which found "no statistically significant increase in risk for adult brain cancer or other head tumors from wireless phone use."[43]

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that while cell phone use increased substantially over the period 1992 to 2008 (from nearly zero to almost 100 percent of the population), the U.S. trends in glioma incidence did not mirror that increase.[44]

In 2014, a French national case-control study, CERENAT, confirmed a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours (gliomas and meningiomas), finding an up to eight-fold increased risk of gliomas tied with cellphone use.[45] A review published the same year concluded that its results "detract from the hypothesis that mobile phone use affects the occurrence of intracranial tumors."[46]

In March 2015, a study on mice carried on by Prof. Alexander Lerchl of Jacobs University in Bremen and his team on behalf of the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection found out that the growth rate of liver and lung cancer generated by chemical substances raises substantially when the animals are lifelong irradiated with mobile phone-like e.m. fields.[47] This study confirms a research carried on in 2010 at Fraunhofer Institute.[47] Moreover, the researchers discovered a significant higher rate of lymphomas, and found out that some of the effects occur also for field intensities lower than current limits.[47] The underlying mechanisms are unknown.[47]

In May 2016, the National Toxicology Program released partial results from an extensive rat study finding that cell phone radiation exposure was associated with an increase in brain and heart cancer rates.[48][49] Specifically, 2 to 3 percent of male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed malignant glioma brain tumors and 5 to 7 percent of exposed rats developed schwannoma tumors in their hearts.[50] Because of the scale of the study, scientists such as the director of the American Science Society, found the study to be based on solid grounds and serving as major advance towards resolving the important cell phone use and public health issue.[51] Other scientists and organizations questioned the findings because of the apparent reliability problems.[50] Only male rats indicated a significant tumor increase while there were no significant increase in female rats. Unlike the normal rat population's 2 percent malignant glioma rates, none of the control group's rats showed any malignant glioma development. What was also surprising was that the exposed male rats demonstrated longer life spans than the control group's unexposed male rats.[50] These inconsistencies led Dr. Michael S. Lauer, deputy director for extramural research at the National Institutes of Health, to conclude that it is likely that the studies findings were based on false positive results.[50]

Cognitive effects[]

A 2009 study, examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right side and sham-exposure.[52]

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity[]

Template:Main article Some users of mobile phones and similar devices have reported feeling various non-specific symptoms during and after use. Studies have failed to link any of these symptoms to electromagnetic exposure and EHS is not a recognised medical diagnosis.[53]

Genotoxic effects[]

A meta-analysis (2008) of 63 in vitro and in vivo studies from the years 1990–2005, concluded that RF radiation was genotoxic only in some conditions and that the studies reporting positive effects evidenced publication bias.[54]

A meta-study (2009) of 101 publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields, showed that 49 reported a genotoxic effect and 42 not. The authors found "ample evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic material of exposed cells in vivo and in vitro and in more than one way".[55]

In 1995, in the journal Bioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to U.S. government standards.[56]

In December 2004, a pan-European study named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 and 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage to chromosomes, alterations in the activity of certain genes and a boosted rate of cell division.[57]

Research published in 2004, by a team at the University of Athens, had a reduction in reproductive capacity in fruit flies exposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.[58]

Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.[59]

Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were "…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …".[60]

Australian research conducted in 2009, by subjecting in vitro samples of human spermatozoa to radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz and specific absorption rates (SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreased motility and vitality in sperm, increased oxidative stress and 8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine markers, stimulating DNA base adduct formation and increased DNA fragmentation.[61]

Sleep and EEG effects[]

Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure. A Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,[62] Other papers report significant effects on sleep.[63][64][65][66][67][68] Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants' broken sleep) improved.

While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,[69][70] a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposure.[71][72][73][74] German research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12–30%).[75]

Behavioural effects[]

A study on mice offspring suggested that cell phone use during pregnancy may cause behavioural problems that resemble the effects of ADHD.[76]

Sperm count and sperm quality[]

A number of studies have shown relationships between mobile telephone use and reduced sperm count and sperm quality. Peer reviewed studies have shown relationships using statistical questionnaire techniques,[77][78][79][80][81] controlled experiments on living humans,[82] and controlled experiments on sperm outside the body.[83][84][85][86]

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a web page entitled "Cell Phone Radiation Damages Sperm, Studies Show" published August 2013. The EWG page reviews and tabulates studies showing relationships between mobile phone use and low sperm count and sperm quality.[87]

Health hazards of base stations[]

File:Cellphone aerial mast.jpg

A Greenfield-type tower used in base stations for mobile telephony

Another area of concern is the radiation emitted by the fixed infrastructure used in mobile telephony, such as base stations and their antennas, which provide the link to and from mobile phones. This is because, in contrast to mobile handsets, it is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. On the other hand, field intensities drop rapidly with distance away from the base of transmitters because of the attenuation of power with the square of distance.

One popular design of mobile phone antenna is the sector antenna, whose coverage is 120 degrees horizontally and about ∓5 degrees from the vertical.

Because many base stations operate at less than 100 watts and the antenna is raised up well above ground, the radiation at ground level is much weaker than that from a cell phone, due to the power relationship appropriate for that design of antenna. Base station emissions must comply with safety guidelines (see Safety standards and licensing below). Some countries, however (such as South Africa, for example), have no health regulations governing the placement of base stations.

Several surveys have found a variety of self-reported symptoms for people who live close to base stations.[88][89][90][91][92] However, there are significant challenges in conducting studies of populations near base stations, especially in assessment of individual exposure.[93] Self-report studies can also be vulnerable to the nocebo effect.

Two double-blind placebo-controlled trials conducted at the University of Essex and another in Switzerland[94] concluded that mobile phone masts were unlikely to be causing these short-term effects in a group of volunteers who complained of such symptoms.[95] The Essex study found that subjects were unable to tell whether they were being exposed to electromagnetic fields or not, and that sensitive subjects reported lower well-being independently of exposure. The principal investigator concluded "It is clear that sensitive individuals are suffering real symptoms and often have a poor quality of life. It is now important to determine what other factors could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and treatment strategies can be developed."

Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that the main antenna axis should not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres.[96] This recommendation was modified in 2003[97] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.[98] The Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale currently says that there is no demonstrated short-term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long-term effects, and that it's easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements.[99]

Occupational health hazards[]

Telecommunication workers spend significant time close to active equipment when installing, testing and maintaining it. Base stations are often not turned off during maintenance but the power being sent through to the antennas is disconnected, so that the workers do not have to work near live antennas. In spite of this they receive much greater exposure than the general population.

Studies carried out over the past 50 years on such workers exposed to high RF radiation levels have found no significant evidence of increase in cancer rates.[100]

Safety standards and licensing[]

In order to protect the population living around base stations and users of mobile handsets, governments and regulatory bodies adopt safety standards, which translate to limits on exposure levels below a certain value. There are many proposed national and international standards, but that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is the most respected one, and has been adopted so far by more than 80 countries. For radio stations, ICNIRP proposes two safety levels: one for occupational exposure, another one for the general population. Currently there are efforts underway to harmonise the different standards in existence.[101]

Radio base licensing procedures have been established in the majority of urban spaces regulated either at municipal/county, provincial/state or national level. Mobile telephone service providers are, in many regions, required to obtain construction licenses, provide certification of antenna emission levels and assure compliance to ICNIRP standards and/or to other environmental legislation.

Many governmental bodies also require that competing telecommunication companies try to achieve sharing of towers so as to decrease environmental and cosmetic impact. This issue is an influential factor of rejection of installation of new antennas and towers in communities.

The safety standards in the U.S. are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has based its standards primarily on those standards established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), specifically Subcommittee 4 of the "International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety".

Switzerland has set safety limits lower than the ICNIRP limits for certain "sensitive areas" (classrooms, for example).[102]


In the U.S., a small number of personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals against cellphone manufacturers, such as Motorola,[103] NEC, Siemens and Nokia, on the basis of allegations of causation of brain cancer and death. In US federal court, expert testimony relating to science must be first evaluated by a judge, in a Daubert hearing, to be relevant and valid before it is admissible as evidence. In a 2002 case against Motorola, the plaintiffs alleged that the use of wireless handheld telephones could cause brain cancer, and that the use of Motorola phones caused one plaintiff's cancer. The judge ruled that no sufficiently reliable and relevant scientific evidence in support of either general or specific causation was proffered by the plaintiffs; accepted a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts; and denied a motion to exclude the testimony of the defendants' experts.[104]

French High Court ruling against telecom company[]

In February 2009, the telecom company Bouygues Telecom was ordered to take down a mobile phone mast due to uncertainty about its effect on health. Residents in the commune Charbonnières in the Rhône department had sued the company claiming adverse health effects from the radiation emitted by the 19 meter tall antenna.[105] The milestone ruling by the Versailles Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof which is usual in such cases by emphasizing the extreme divergence between different countries in assessing safe limits for such radiation. The court stated that, "Considering that, while the reality of the risk remains hypothetical, it becomes clear from reading the contributions and scientific publications produced in debate and the divergent legislative positions taken in various countries, that uncertainty over the harmlessness of exposure to the waves emitted by relay antennas persists and can be considered serious and reasonable".[106]

Italian High Court ruling in favour of "causal" link with brain cancer[]

In October 2012, Italian high court (Corte suprema di cassazione) granted an Italian businessman, Innocente Marcoloni a pension for occupational disease; "[c]ontrary to the denials of many health agencies in the U.S. and in some other countries, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized a "causal" link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumor risk in a worker's compensation case."[107][108] According to Reuters, a lower court in Brescia had "ruled there was a causal link between the use of mobile and cordless telephones and tumours" in the case of "Innocenzo Marcolini who developed a tumour in the left side of his head after using his mobile phone for [between 5 and 6] hours a day for 12 years. He normally held the phone in his left hand, while taking notes with his right hand" and that the ruling was upheld but they summarized experts saying the "decision flies in the face of much scientific opinion, which generally says there is not enough evidence to declare a link between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and some experts said the Italian ruling should not be used to draw wider conclusions about the subject."[109] As it takes time to develop cancer, the court disregarded short-term studies.Citation needed The court based their ruling on "studies conducted between 2005 and 2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden"[109] and disregarded studies that were even partially funded by the mobile phone industry such as the INTERPHONE (see above).


Precautionary principle[]

In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the precautionary principle could be voluntarily adopted in this case.[110] It follows the recommendations of the European Community for environmental risks. According to the WHO, the "precautionary principle" is "a risk management policy applied in circumstances with a high degree of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take action for a potentially serious risk without awaiting the results of scientific research." Other less stringent recommended approaches are prudent avoidance principle and as low as reasonably practicable. Although all of these are problematic in application, due to the widespread use and economic importance of wireless telecommunication systems in modern civilization, there is an increased popularity of such measures in the general public, though also evidence that such approaches may increase concern.[111] They involve recommendations such as the minimization of cellphone usage, the limitation of use by at-risk population (such as children), the adoption of cellphones and microcells with as low as reasonably practicable levels of radiation, the wider use of hands-free and earphone technologies such as Bluetooth headsets, the adoption of maximal standards of exposure, RF field intensity and distance of base stations antennas from human habitations, and so forth.Citation needed Overall, public information remains a challenge as various health consequences are evoked in the literature and by the media, putting populations under chronic exposure to potentially worrying information.[112]

Precautionary measures and health advisories[]

In May 2011, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it was classifying electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and other sources as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" and advised the public to adopt safety measures to reduce exposure, like use of hands-free devices or texting.

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[5] France,[113] Germany,[114] and Sweden,[115] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

  • Use wired earphones to Keep the mobile phone away from the body, and decrease radiation to the head.
  • Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[116] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[117] and others for the French Template:Interlanguage link multi[118] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head.[119]

Several nations have advised moderate use of mobile phones for children.[120] A journal by Gandhi et al. in 2006 states that children receive higher levels of SAR. When 5- and 10- year olds are compared to adults, they receive about 153% higher SAR levels. Also, with the permittivity of the brain decreasing as one gets older and the higher relative volume of the exposed growing brain in children, radiation penetrates far beyond the mid-brain.[121]

  2. 2.0 2.1 Template:Cite press release
  3. "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones - Fact sheet N°193". World Health Organization. June 2011. Retrieved 2015-05-22.  (Use archive link for archived copy of June 2011 version of Fact sheet No 193).
  4. "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones - Fact sheet N°193". World Health Organization. October 2014. Retrieved 2015-05-22. 
  5. 5.0 5.1 "Information: Wie gefährlich sind Handystrahlen wirklich?" (in German). Marktgemeinde Pressbaum. 
  6. "Conclusions on mobile phones and radio frequency fields". European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Retrieved 8 December 2008. 
  7. "GSM phone signal analysis" (pdf). 
  8. "Output Power-Control Loop Design for GSM Mobile Phones" (pdf). Retrieved 12 February 2013. 
  9. For example, two listings using the European 10 g standard: of more current models at "Mobile Phones UK". Mobile Phones UK web site. Landmark Internet Ltd. Retrieved 19 January 2008. ; of phones from 2005 and earlier at "The Complete SAR List For All Phones (Europe)". On-Line-Net - Web Design & Internet Services (as Retrieved 19 January 2008.  (A listing of U.S. phones from 2005 and earlier, using the U.S. 1-gram standard, is also available at the SARValues site)
  10. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (April 1998). "Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, And Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)" (PDF). Health Physics 74 (4): 494–505. PMID 9525427. Retrieved 28 March 2010. 
  11. Foster, Kenneth R.; Repacholi, Michael H. (2004). "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Fields: Does Modulation Matter?". Radiation Research 162 (2): 219–25. doi:10.1667/RR3191. PMID 15387150. 
  12. Glaser, Roland (December 2005). "Are thermoreceptors responsible for "non-thermal" effects of RF fields?" (PDF). Edition Wissenschaft (Bonn, Germany: Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk) (21). OCLC 179908725. Retrieved 19 January 2008. 
  13. Blank, Martin; Goodman, Reba (2009). "Electromagnetic fields stress living cells". Pathophysiology 16 (2–3): 71–8. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.006. PMID 19268550. 
  14. Volkow, Nora D.; Tomasi, Dardo; Wang, Gene-Jack; Vaska, Paul; Fowler, Joanna S.; Telang, Frank; Alexoff, Dave; Logan, Jean et al. (2011). "Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism". JAMA 305 (8): 808–13. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.186. PMID 21343580. 
  15. Press, Canadian (23 February 2011). "Cellphones linked to increased brain glucose metabolism". The Globe and Mail (Toronto). Retrieved 26 February 2011. 
  16. Salford, Leif G.; Arne E. Brun; Jacob L. Eberhardt; Lars Malmgren; Bertil R. R. Persson (June 2003). "Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones". Environmental Health Perspectives (United States: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 111 (7): 881–883. doi:10.1289/ehp.6039. PMID 12782486. 
  17. Salford, Leif G.; Henrietta Nittby; Arne Brun; Gustav Grafstrom; Lars Malmgren; Marianne Sommarin; Jacob Eberhardt; Bengt Widegren et al. (2008). "The Mammalian Brain in the Electromagnetic Fields Designed by Man with Special Reference to Blood-Brain Barrier Function, Neuronal Damage and Possible Physical Mechanisms". Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement (Japan: Physical Society of Japan) 173: 283–309. doi:10.1143/PTPS.173.283. 
  18. 18.0 18.1 Frey, Allan (March 1998). "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and What Are the Implications?". Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (3): 101–3. doi:10.1289/ehp.98106101. PMID 9441959. 
  19. Franke (2 September 2005). "Electromagnetic fields (GSM 1800) do not alter blood–brain barrier permeability to sucrose in models in vitro with high barrier tightness". Bioelectromagnetics 26 (7): 529–535. doi:10.1002/bem.20123. 
  20. Kuribayashi. "Lack of effects of 1439 MHz electromagnetic near field exposure on the blood–brain barrier in immature and young rats". Bioelectromagnetics 26 (7): 578–588. doi:10.1002/bem.20138. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 Schüz, J; Jacobsen, R; Olsen, JH; Boice, JD; McLaughlin, JK; Johansen, C (December 2006). "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98 (23): 1707–1713. doi:10.1093/jnci/djj464. PMID 17148772. Retrieved 20 January 2008. "Among long-term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors ..., and there was no trend with time since first subscription. ...CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users. Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.". 
  23. Template:Citation
  24. Parker-Pope, Tara (6 June 2011). "Piercing the Fog Around Cellphones and Cancer". The New York Times. 
  25. Interphone Study Group (2010). "Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study". International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (3): 675–694. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079. PMID 20483835. 
  26. Template:Cite press release
  28. Ahlbom, Anders; Feychting, Maria; Cardis, Elisabeth; Elliott, Paul (2007). "Re: Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort Study". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 99 (8): 655–655. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk143. PMID 17440169. 
  29. Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria; Swedish Interphone Study Group (2005). "Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk". American Journal of Epidemiology 161 (6): 526–35. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi091. PMID 15746469. 
  30. Schoemaker, M J; Swerdlow, A J; Ahlbom, A; Auvinen, A; Blaasaas, K G; Cardis, E; Christensen, H Collatz; Feychting, M et al. (2005). "Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case–control study in five North European countries". British Journal of Cancer 93 (7): 842–848. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764. PMID 16136046. 
  31. Schüz, Joachim; Böhler, Eva; Berg, Gabriele; Schlehofer, Brigitte; Hettinger, Iris; Schlaefer, Klaus; Wahrendorf, Jürgen; Kunna-Grass, Katharina et al. (2006). "Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)". American Journal of Epidemiology 163 (6): 512–20. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj068. PMID 16443797. 
  32. Lahkola, Anna; Auvinen, Anssi; Raitanen, Jani; Schoemaker, Minouk J.; Christensen, Helle C.; Feychting, Maria; Johansen, Christoffer; Klæboe, Lars et al. (2007). "Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries". International Journal of Cancer 120 (8): 1769–75. doi:10.1002/ijc.22503. PMID 17230523. 
  33. Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria (2004). "Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma". Epidemiology 15 (6): 653–9. doi:10.1097/ PMID 15475713. 
  34. Takebayashi, T; Varsier, N; Kikuchi, Y; Wake, K; Taki, M; Watanabe, S; Akiba, S; Yamaguchi, N (5 February 2008). "Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study". British Journal of Cancer (London: Nature Publishing Group) 98 (3): 652–659. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214. PMID 18256587. PMC 2243154. Retrieved 12 March 2008. Lay summary – Reuters (5 February 2008). "‘Using our newly developed and more accurate techniques, we found no association between mobile phone use and cancer, providing more evidence to suggest they don’t cause brain cancer,’ Naohito Yamaguchi, who led the research, said.". 
  35. Hardell, Lennart; Carlberg, Michael; Söderqvist, Fredrik; Mild, Kjell Hansson; Morgan, L. Lloyd (2007). "Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: Increased risk associated with use for ≥10 years". Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64 (9): 626–32. doi:10.1136/oem.2006.029751. PMID 17409179. 
  36. INTERPHONE Study Results update – 7 February 2008
  37. "Public health implications of wireless technologies". Pathophysiology 16 (2–3): 233–46. March 2009. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.011. PMID 19285839. 
  38. "Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases". Pathophysiology 16 (2–3): 113–22. March 2009. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.003. PMID 19268551. 
  39. Myung, S.-K.; Ju, W.; McDonnell, D. D.; Lee, Y. J.; Kazinets, G.; Cheng, C.-T.; Moskowitz, J. M. (13 October 2009). "Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Clinical Oncology 27 (33): 5565–5572. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366. 
  40. Deltour, Isabelle; Johansen, Christoffer; Auvinen, Anssi; Feychting, Maria; Klaeboe, Lars; Schüz, Joachim (16 December 2009). "Time Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974–2003". Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101 (24): 1721–1724. doi:10.1093/jnci/djp415. PMID 19959779. 
  41. Baan, Robert; Yann Grosse; Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Fatiha El Ghissassi; Véronique Bouvard; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Neela Guha; Farhad Islami et al. (July 2011). "Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields". The Lancet Onkology 12 (7): 624–626. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4. PMID 21845765. Retrieved 26 June 2011. 
  42. Swerdlow, AJ; Feychting, M; Green, AC; Leeka Kheifets, LK; Savitz, DA; International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standing Committee on, Epidemiology (November 2011). "Mobile phones, brain tumors, and the interphone study: where are we now?". Environmental Health Perspectives 119 (11): 1534–8. doi:10.1289/ehp.1103693. PMID 22171384. 
  43. Repacholi, Michael H.; Lerchl, Alexander; Röösli, Martin; Sienkiewicz, Zenon; Auvinen, Anssi; Breckenkamp, Jürgen; d'Inzeo, Guglielmo; Elliott, Paul et al. (Apr 2012). "Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors". Bioelectromagnetics 33 (3): 187–206. doi:10.1002/bem.20716. PMID 22021071. 
  44. "U.S. population data show no increase in brain cancer rates during period of expanding cell phone use". Retrieved 12 February 2013. 
  45. Coureau, Gaëlle (9 May 2014). "Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study". Occupational and Environmental Medicine 71: 514–522. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101754. Retrieved 15 April 2015. 
  46. Lagorio, Susanna; Röösli, Martin (February 2014). "Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors: A consistency analysis". Bioelectromagnetics 35 (2): 79–90. doi:10.1002/bem.21829. 
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 Schönemann, Thomas (6 March 2015). "Höhere Tumorraten durch elektromagnetische Felder". Krebs-Nachrichten. Retrieved 17 March 2015. 
  48. Maron, Dina Fine. "Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions". 
  49. Wyde, Michael; Cesta, Mark; Blystone, Chad; Elmore, Susan; Foster, Paul; Hooth, Michelle; Kissling, Grace; Malarkey, David et al. (2016-05-26). "Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure)" (in en). bioRxiv: 055699. doi:10.1101/055699. 
  50. 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 Pollack, Andrew (2016-05-27). "Questions and Answers on the New Study Linking Cellphones and Cancer in Rats". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. 
  51. Sampson, David (2016-05-27). "ACS Responds to New Study Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer". 
  52. Luria, Roy; Eliyahu, Ilan; Hareuveny, Ronen; Margaliot, Menachem; Meiran, Nachshon (2009). "Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: The influence of exposure side and time". Bioelectromagnetics 30 (3): 198–204. doi:10.1002/bem.20458. PMID 19194860. 
  53. Röösli, Martin (June 2008). "Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review". Environmental Research 107 (2): 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.02.003. PMID 18359015. 
  54. Vijayalaxmi; Prihoda, Thomas J. (2008). "Genetic Damage in Mammalian Somatic Cells Exposed to Radiofrequency Radiation: A Meta-analysis of Data from 63 Publications (1990–2005)". Radiation Research 169 (5): 561–574. doi:10.1667/RR0987.1. PMID 18494173. 
  55. Ruediger, HW (August 2009). "Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields". Pathophysiology (Elsevier) 16 (2–3): 67–69. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.02.002. PMID 19264462. 
  56. Harrill, Rob (March 2005). "Wake-up Call". The University of Washington Alumni Magazine (March 2005). Retrieved 31 May 2008. 
  57. REFLEX - Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. Munich: VERUM Stiftung für Verhalten und Umwelt. 2004. Retrieved 25 May 2011. 
  58. Panagopoulos, DJ; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH (1 December 2004). "Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London, UK: Taylor & Francis) 23 (1): 29–43. doi:10.1081/JBC-120039350. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 87856304. Retrieved 15 January 2008. 
  59. Panagopoulos, DJ; Chavdoula, ED; Karabarbounis, A; Margaritis, LH (1 January 2007). "Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London, UK: Informa Healthcare) 26 (1): 33–44. doi:10.1080/15368370701205644. ISSN 1536-8378. OCLC 47815878. PMID 17454081. Retrieved 14 January 2008. 
  60. Panagopoulos, DJ; Chavdoula, ED; Nezis, IP; Margaritis, LH (10 January 2007). "Cell death induced by GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation". Mutation Research (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier) 626 (1–2): 69–78. doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.08.008. ISSN 0027-5107. OCLC 109920000. PMID 17045516. Retrieved 15 January 2008. "Our present results suggest that the decrease in oviposition previously reported, is due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells, induced by both types of mobile telephony radiation. Induced cell death is recorded for the first time, in all types of cells constituting an egg chamber…". 
  61. De Iuliis, Geoffry N.; Rhiannon J. Newey; Bruce V. King; R. John Aitken (31 July 2009). Zhang, Baohong. ed. "Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro". PLoS ONE (Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia) 4 (7): e6446. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006446. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 19649291. PMC 2714176. 
  62. Haarala, C; Takio F; Rintee T; Laine M; Koivisto M; Revonsuo A; Hämäläinen H (May 2007). "Pulsed and continuous wave mobile phone exposure over left versus right hemisphere: effects on human cognitive function". Bioelectromagnetics (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 28 (4): 289–95. doi:10.1002/bem.20287. PMID 17203481. 
  63. Borbély, AA; Huber R; Graf T; Fuchs B; Gallmann E; Achermann P (19 November 1999). "Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 275 (3): 207–10. doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(99)00770-3. PMID 10580711. 
  64. Huber, R; Graf T; Cote KA; Wittmann L; Gallmann E; Matter D; Schuderer J; Kuster N; Borbély AA; Achermann P (20 October 2000). "Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking affects human sleep EEG". NeuroReport (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc) 11 (15): 3321–5. doi:10.1097/00001756-200010200-00012. PMID 11059895. 
  65. Huber, R; Treyer V; Borbély AA; Schuderer J; Gottselig JM; Landolt HP; Werth E; Berthold T; Kuster N; Buck A; Achermann P (December 2002). "Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG". Journal of sleep research (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 11 (4): 289–95. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2869.2002.00314.x. PMID 12464096. 
  66. Huber, R; Treyer V; Schuderer J; Berthold T; Buck A; Kuster N; Landolt HP; Achermann P (February 2005). "Exposure to pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields affects regional cerebral blood flow". The European Journal of Neuroscience (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 21 (4): 1000–6. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03929.x. PMID 15787706. 
  67. Hung, CS; Anderson C; Horne, JA; McEvoy, P (21 June 2007). "Mobile phone 'talk-mode' signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 421 (1): 82–6. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.05.027. ISSN 0304-3940. PMID 17548154. 
  68. Andrzejak, R; Poreba R; Poreba M; Derkacz A; Skalik R; Gac P; Beck B; Steinmetz-Beck A; Pilecki W (August 2008). "The influence of the call with a mobile phone on heart rate variability parameters in healthy volunteers". Industrial health (National Institute of Industrial Health) 46 (4): 409–17. doi:10.2486/indhealth.46.409. PMID 18716391. 
  69. Krause, CM; Pesonen M; Haarala Björnberg C; Hämäläinen H (May 2007). "Effects of pulsed and continuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone exposure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing". Bioelectromagnetics (Wiley-Liss, Inc) 28 (4): 296–308. doi:10.1002/bem.20300. PMID 17203478. 
  70. Papageorgiou, CC; Nanou ED; Tsiafakis VG; Kapareliotis E; Kontoangelos KA; Capsalis CN; Rabavilas AD; Soldatos CR (10 April 2006). "Acute mobile phone effects on pre-attentive operation". Neuroscience Letters (East Park, Ireland: Elsevier Science Ireland) 397 (1–2): 99–103. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.12.001. PMID 16406308. 
  71. Kramarenko, AV; Tan U (July 2003). "Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study". The International journal of neuroscience (Taylor and Francis) 113 (7): 1007–19. doi:10.1080/00207450390220330. PMID 12881192. 
  72. D'Costa, H; Trueman G; Tang L; Abdel-rahman U; Abdel-rahman W; Ong K; Cosic I (December 2003). "Human brain wave activity during exposure to radiofrequency field emissions from mobile phones". Australas Phys Eng Sci Med (Australasian College Of Physical Scientists In Medicine) 26 (4): 162–7. doi:10.1007/BF03179176. ISSN 0158-9938. PMID 14995060. 
  73. Krause, CM; Björnberg CH; Pesonen M; Hulten A; Liesivuori T; Koivisto M; Revonsuo A; Laine M; Hämäläinen H (June 2006). "Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task". International journal of radiation biology (Taylor and Francis) 82 (6): 443–50. doi:10.1080/09553000600840922. PMID 16846979. 
  74. Aalto, S; Haarala C; Brück A; Sipilä H; Hämäläinen H; Rinne JO (July 2006). "Mobile phone affects cerebral blood flow in humans". J Cereb Blood Flow Metab (Nature Publishing Group) 26 (7): 885–90. doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600279. PMID 16495939. 
  75. Bachmann, M; Lass J; Kalda J; Säkki M; Tomson R; Tuulik V; Hinrikus H; Kalda, J; Säkki, M; Tomson, R; Tuulik, V; Hinrikus, H (2006). "Integration of differences in EEG analysis reveals changes in human EEG caused by microwave". Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc (IEEE Service Center) 1: 1597–600. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2006.259234. PMID 17946053. 
  76. "Cell Phone Use in Pregnancy May Cause Behavioral Disorders in Offspring, Mouse Study Suggests". Science Daily. Retrieved 1 April 2012. 
  77. "Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?". Arch Androl 51 (5): 385–93. 2005. 
  78. "Image content influences men's semen quality". Biol Lett 1 (3): 253–5. 2005. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0324. PMID 17148180. 
  79. "Evaluation of the effect of using mobile phones on male fertility". Ann Agric Environ Med 14 (1): 169–72. 2007. 
  80. "Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study". Fertil Steril 89 (1): 124–8. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.166. 
  81. "Impact of cell phone use on men's semen parameters". Andrologia 43 (5): 312–6. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0272.2011.01075.x. 
  82. Davoudi M, Brossner C, Kuber W. 2002. The influence of electromagnetic waves on sperm motility. Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie 19: 19-22.
  83. "Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study". Arch Med Res 37 (7): 840–3. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2006.05.003. 
  84. "Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study". Fertil Steril 92 (4): 1318–25. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.022. PMID 18804757. 
  85. "Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro". PLOS ONE 4 (7): e6446. 2009. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006446. PMID 19649291. 
  86. "The effect of pulsed 900-MHz GSM mobile phone radiation on the acrosome reaction, head morphometry and zona binding of human spermatozoa". Int J Androl 34 (1): 20–6. 2011. 
  88. Santini, R; Santini, P; Danze, JM; LeRuz, P; Seigne, M (January 2003). "Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London: Informa Healthcare) 22 (1): 41–49. doi:10.1081/JBC-120020353. OCLC 88891277. Retrieved 9 February 2008. 
  89. Navarro, Enrique A; Segura, J; Portolés, M; Gómez-Perretta de Mateo, Claudio (December 2003). "The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (London: Informa Healthcare) 22 (2): 161–169. doi:10.1081/JBC-120024625. OCLC 89106315. Retrieved 9 February 2008. 
    Oberfeld, Gerd; Navarro, Enrique A; Portoles, Manuel; Maestu, Ceferino; Gomez-Perretta, Claudio (2004). "The Microwave Syndrome: Further Aspects of a Spanish Study". in Kostarakis, P. Biological effects of EMFs : Proceedings, Kos, Greece, 4–8 October 2004, 3rd International Workshop. Ioannina, Greece: Electronics, Telecom & Applications Laboratory, Physics Dept., University of Ioannina : Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications, N.C.S.R. "Demokritos". ISBN 960-233-152-6. 
  90. Abdel-Rassoul, G; Abou El-Fateh, O; Abou Salem, M; Michael, A; Farahat, F; El-Batanouny, M; Salem, E (March 2007). "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations" (PDF). NeuroToxicology (New York, NY: Elsevier Science) 28 (2): 434–40. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012. OCLC 138574974. PMID 16962663. Retrieved 10 February 2008. 
  91. Bortkiewicz, A; Zmyślony, M; Szyjkowska, A; Gadzicka, E (2004). "Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review" (in Polish). Medycyna pracy (Warsaw: Państwowy Zakład Wydawnictw Lekarskich) 55 (4): 345–352. BL Shelfmark: 5536.020000. ISSN 0465-5893. OCLC 108011911. PMID 15620045. 
  92. Hutter, H-P; H Moshammer; P Wallner; M Kundi (1 May 2006). "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations". Occupational and Environmental Medicine (London, UK: the BMJ Publishing Group) 63 (5): 307–313. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.020784. OCLC 41236398. PMID 16621850. PMC 2092490. Retrieved 7 January 2008. 
  93. Neubauer; Feychting, M; Hamnerius, Y; Kheifets, L; Kuster, N; Ruiz, I; Schüz, J; Uberbacher, R et al. (2007). "Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations". Bioelectromagnetics 28 (3): 224–230. doi:10.1002/bem.20298. PMID 17080459. 
  94. "UMTS Base Station-like Exposure, Well-Being, and Cognitive Performance". Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (8): 8. 2006. doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. PMID 16882538. 
  95. Eltiti, S; Wallace, D; Ridgewell, A; Zougkou, K; Russo, R; Sepulveda, F; Mirshekar-Syahkal, D; Rasor, P; Deeble, R; Fox, E (November 2007). "Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study". Environ Health Perspect 115 (11): 1603–1608. doi:10.1289/ehp.10286. OCLC 183843559. PMID 18007992. Lay summary – Study finds health symptoms aren’t linked to mast emissions University of Essex (25 July 2007). 
  96. page 37
  97. Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport à l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, 21 March 2003 at
  98. Téléphonie mobile et santé, Rapport du groupe d’experts, l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, April 2005 at
  99. "Radiofréquences : actualisation de l'expertise (2009)", l'Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire Environnementale, April 2005 at
  100. Moulder, JE; Erdreich, LS; Malyapa, RS; Merritt, J; Pickard, WF; Vijayalaxmi (May 1999). "Cell phones and cancer: what is the evidence for a connection?". Radiation Research (New York: Academic Press) 151 (5): 513–531. doi:10.2307/3580028. ISSN 0033-7587. OCLC 119963820. PMID 10319725. Retrieved 10 February 2008. 
  101. "International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection home page". Retrieved 7 January 2008. 
  102. "Anforderungen nach NISV: Mobilfunkanlagen [Specifications of the Regulation on Non-Ionizing Radiation: Mobile Telephone Installations]" (in German). Bundesamt für Umwelt [Swiss Federal Environment Ministry]. 13 March 2009. Retrieved 20 January 2010. 
  103. Wright v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No95-L-04929
  104. Template:Cite court
  105. Barstad, Stine (18 February 2009). "Kunne ikke bevise at strålingen var ufarlig" (in Norwegian). Aftenposten. Archived from the original on 25 May 2009. Retrieved 25 May 2009. 
  106. Template:Cite court
  107. "Cassazione Civile, 12 ottobre 2012, n. 17438 – Uso di telefoni nel corso dell’attività lavorativa e patologia tumorale" (in Italian). Retrieved 16 March 2015. 
  108. Template:Cite press
  109. 109.0 109.1 "Italy court ruling links mobile phone use to tumour". Reuters. 19 October 2012. 
  110. "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health - Cautionary Policies". World Health Organization Backgrounder. World Health Organization. March 2000. Retrieved 1 February 2008. 
  111. Wiedemann; Thalmann, Andrea; Grutsch, Markus; Schütz, Holger (2006). "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust". Journal of Risk Research 9 (4): 361–372. doi:10.1080/13669870600802111. 
  112. Poumadère M.; Perrin A. (2013). "Risk Assessment of Radiofrequencies and Public Information". Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 3 (1): 3–12. doi:10.2991/jrarc.2013.3.1.1. 
  113. "Téléphones mobiles : santé et sécurité" (in French). Le ministère de la santé, de la jeunesse et des sports. 2 January 2008. Retrieved 19 January 2008.  Lay article in Template:En icon making comment at Gitlin, Jonathan M. (3 January 2008). "France: Beware excessive cell phone use—despite lack of data". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 January 2008. 
  114. "Precaution regarding electromagnetic fields". Federal Office for Radiation Protection. 7 December 2007. Retrieved 19 January 2008. 
  115. "Exponering" (in Swedish). Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. February 2006. Retrieved 19 January 2008. 
  116. "UK consumer group: Hands-free phone kits boost radiation exposure". (Cable News Network). 2 November 2000. Retrieved 19 January 2008. 
  117. Manning, MI and Gabriel, CHB, SAR tests on mobile phones used with and without personal hands-free kits, SARtest Report 0083 for the DTI, July 2000 (PDF) at
  118. Téléphonie mobile & santé, Report for l'Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale (Afsse), June 2005 at
  119. "Bead 'slashes mobile radiation'". BBC News. 25 January 2005. Retrieved 17 March 2009. 
  120. For example, Finland "Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority: Children's mobile phone use should be limited". Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). 7 January 2009. Retrieved 20 January 2010.  and France "Téléphone mobile, DAS et santé [Mobile telephones, SAR and health]" (PDF). Votre enfant et le téléphone mobile [Your child and mobile telephony]. Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM)[French Mobile Phone Operators' Association] et l’Union Nationale des Associations Familiales (UNAF) [National Federation of Family Associations]. 31 January 2007. Retrieved 20 January 2010. 
  121. Gandhi, Om P.; Morgan, L. Lloyd; de Salles, Alvaro Augusto; Han, Yueh-Ying; Herberman, Ronald B.; Davis, Devra Lee (14 October 2011). "Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children". Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 31 (1): 34–51. doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. ISSN 1536-8378. Retrieved 2015-04-25.