Radiofrequencies and Electromagnetic Field Radiation (RF-EMF) have become ubiquitous to modern society. According to the World Health Organization1, “Electromagnetic radiation has been around since the birth of the universe.” They are an invisible force that shape our digital infrastructure, the way we communicate, providing new possibilities previously impossible to former generations. Virtually limitless opportunities can be provided through an immense telecommunication network, operating at all hours, working behind the scenes.
With increasing presence of these technological evolutions and total societal and economic reliance, comes the possibility of mass devastation, as many of the hazards of RF-EMF Radiation go unspoken and unnoticed. Could society reach a point where the effects of RF-EMF Radiation poisoning pose a threat to everyday lives, and the longevity of our species? While many forms of radiation exist, from naturally occurring body heat to nuclear, the effects can vary. Intensity, duration, and frequency of exposure all play a role in the effects Radiofrequencies and Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) Radiation has on your body. Despite the lack of research that exists, almost everyone you ask will tell you electronics, security systems, surveillance, radar, cell phones, and other personal telecommunications devices are “fine.”
Any innovation that is profitable, is quickly duplicated and mass produced, with little regard to the long-term impact on humanity, or future generations as a result. The world saw this with Gain-of-Function Research, ultimately leading to the COVID-19 outbreak. What dangers and long-term hazards lie in everyday electronics and telecommunication devices? How can awareness these dangers lead to being better equipped for personal protection? Referred to as “Electromagnetic Pollution2” by twelve scientists*, via the National Institutes of Health, these,
“Current technologies have become a source of omnipresent electromagnetic pollution from generated electromagnetic fields and resulting electromagnetic radiation”
“The harm caused by this pollution is still open to question since there is no clear and definitive evidence of its negative influence on human beings. This is despite the fact that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields were classified as potentially carcinogenic.”
“Electromagnetic fields and/or electromagnetic radiation, as electromagnetic pollution, affect various elements of the environment. Among the elements of that environment all living organisms should be placed at the first position.”
*The twelve scientists involved in this study include Grzegorz Redlarski, Bogdan Lewczuk, Arkadiusz Żak, Andrzej Koncicki, Marek Krawczuk, Janusz Piechocki, Kazimierz Jakubiuk, Piotr Tojza, Jacek Jaworski, Dominik Ambroziak, Łukasz Skarbek, and Dawid Gradolewski.
Radiofrequency radiation is a common occurrence throughout our planet, which is separated by strength into two basic catagories: ionizing or non-ionizing3.
Ionizing vs Non-Ionizing Radiaton -
Ionizing RF Radiation has the ability to destroy DNA, causing cancer, tumors, and a variety of negative health effects, including severe oxidative damage and neurological damage, eventually resulting in death.
Non-Ionizing RF Radiation is harmless by comparison. Radio waves, visible light, and infared are examples of non-ionizing radiation.
Natural vs Artificial Exposure
As organisms living on this glob of rock we are exposed to naturally occurring radiofrequency exposure everyday, from both natural and artificial sources including the sun, space, sky, and earth. Natural sources of Ionizing Radiation include radioactive natural rocks, radiated soil and minerals, cosmic rays from space, natural gamma rays, natural radon exposure, heavy metal mining, zirconium4. Natural Sources of non-ionizing radiation include sunlight, fire, heat.
Artificial sources of non-ionizing radiofrequency exposure include Broadcasting radio, television signals, cordless telephones, cell phones, cell phone towers, satellite phones, 2-way radios, radar, routers, WiFi, Bluetooth® devices, smart meters, smart lights, smart cities, some medical procedures, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) development, airport screening security scanners, RFID microchips, and 5G to name a few. Artificial sources of ionizing radiation include X-ray machines, artificial gamma rays.
“Millimeter wave scanners [airport security scanners] do not use x-rays (or any other kind of high-energy radiation), and the amount of RF radiation used is very low. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these scanners have no known health effects. However, TSA often allows people to be screened in a different way if they object to screening with these scanners.5”
American Cancer Society via cancer.org
Radiofrequencies and Electromagnetic Fields
Artificial radiofrequency exposure is prevalent in everyday life, making it responsible for the majority of radiofrequency injuries and deaths, as a result of prolonged consistent exposure.
Radiofrequencies in Animals
Large studies exposed groups of lab rats and mice to radiofrequency (RF) waves over their entire bodies starting before birth and continuing throughout their natural lives. According to the researchers,
“Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.”
US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy
Radiofrequencies in Humans
The dangers of radiofrequencies are unacknowledged by official health organizations, despite the limited evidence that exists. Not enough studies have been produced to fully authenticate that radiofrequency radiation is responsible for cancer, and other health effects.
Proponents of RF-EMF Radiation
The majority of agencies responsible for determining whether or not RF-EMF Radiation is hazardous to human life, unanimously agree that while RF-EMF may be potentially carcinogenic, there is not enough evidence and conclusive results to produce a substantial change. If our dependency on RF-EMF telecommunications doesn’t change, and carcinogenic effects of wireless communications radiation begin to increase in prevalence, earth’s current digital infrastructure may need to be rethought. This would require backtracking technology, reverse engineering existing technologies to reduce biological radiation effects.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) “does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell phones towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.”
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) - “Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans,’ based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer.”
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - “Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation].”
National Toxicology Program (NTP) - The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens
US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) states, “[C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used.”
Warnings of RF-EMF Radiation
In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project, to display biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF). The World Health Organization was established after World War II as a global organization, backed by the United Nations, to focus on the overall well-being of humanity. If the World Health Organization created an International EMF Project to display biological toxicities of electromagnetic pollution, should other official organizations also adhere to this concern?
RF-EMF Classified as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans by WHO/IARC -
On May 31st, 2011 in Lyon, France, The World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.
The WHO/IARC study classified “heavy users” as users who reported an average thirty minutes per day over a ten-year period. In today’s age many users spend every moment of their lives surrounded by RF EMF Radiation. What other dangers lie in Wireless Communications Radiation (WCR)?
As of 2022, the World Health Organization claims that 80% of the countries surveyed had legislation on exposure to electromagnetic fields6.
Peer Reviewed RF-EMF Research -
In a published peer-reviewed research report on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), scientists have stated that:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that RF-EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life”
The Telecommunications Act7 of 1996 contained provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices.
Section 704 of the Act states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions." Further information on FCC policy is available in a factsheet from the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
Wireless Communication Radiation (WCR)
Deemed “radio-wave sickness”, illness from WCR exposure has been documented by Russian scientists since the early use of radar. Similar to Radon, Wireless communication radiation is a very real hazard, with the majority of the world at some form of risk. This does not mean one should disband themselves from society, avoiding all technology, living in isolation. The awareness of Wireless communication radiation allows telecommunication users to make conscience decisions on their habits, and regulate their digital addictions accordingly.
The National Institutes of Health released a study stating8 that “Low-level WCR [Wireless Communications Radiation] has been found to impact the organism at all levels of organization, from the molecular to the cellular, physiological, behavioral, and psychological levels.”
There are even reports of RF-EMF radiation effecting the health of surrounding trees within range of the towers9. In humans, Oncologists Lennart Hardell, and Michael Carlberg produced a report on Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma, finding radiofrequencies to be contributory to brain tumors in certain instances10.
Additionally, the NIH website notes that Wireless Communications Radiation (WRC) “has been shown to cause systemic detrimental health effects including increased cancer risk, endocrine changes, increased free radical production, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory defects, and neurological disorders. Having evolved within Earth’s extremely low-level natural radiofrequency background, organisms lack the ability to adapt to heightened levels of unnatural radiation of wireless communications technology with digital modulation that includes short intense pulses (bursts).”
According to the American Cancer Society11, body tissues closer to cell phones absorb more RF-EMF Radiation than body tissue further away. The factors responsible for exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Radiation are,
The amount of time the person is on the phone.
Whether the person is holding the phone close to the head, or is instead using the speaker mode or a hands-free device. The farther away from a person's body the phone is, the less they are exposed.
The distance and path to the nearest cell phone tower. Cell phones adjust their power to use the minimum amount for a good signal. Being farther away from the tower requires more energy to get a good signal, as does being inside a building.
The amount of cell phone traffic in the area at the time. Higher traffic (from many people using cell phones) may require more energy to get a good signal.
The model of phone being used. Different phones give off different amounts of energy.
“Because cell phones usually are held near the head when a person is on a call, the main concern has been whether the phones might cause or contribute to tumors in this area, including: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, non-cancerous tumors of the brain, such as meningiomas, non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (vestibular schwannomas, also known as acoustic neuromas), tumors of the salivary glands”
American Cancer Society cancer.org
“‘Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that RF-EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.” – EMF Scientific Appeal
“There is a substantial body of evidence that this technology is harmful to humans and the environment. The 5G millimeter wave is known to heat the eyes, skin and testes… Of particular concern are the most vulnerable among us — the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled. It is also expected that populations of bees and birds will drastically decline.” Letter from oncologist Lennart Hardell MD & Colleagues
“A growing body of scientific literature documents evidence of nonthermal cellular damage from non-ionizing wireless radiation used in telecommunications. This RF EMR has been shown to cause an array of adverse effects on DNA integrity, cellular membranes, gene expression, protein synthesis, neuronal function, the blood brain barrier, melatonin production, sperm damage and immune dysfunction”. –Dr. Cindy Russell 2018 paper entitled “5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.”
“Evidence shows that EMF frequencies cause DNA single and double strand breaks [DNA damage], oxidative damage, disruption of cell metabolism, increased blood brain barrier permeability, melatonin reduction, disruption to brain glucose metabolism, and the generation of stress proteins to occur from low-level exposure.”
Could RF-EMF Radiation play a role in the everyday health of individuals around the world? What studies are being conducted that will be used to regulate RF-EMF exposure? Stating that RF-EMF Radiation is harmless, is equivalent to dismissing exposure to second-hand smoke, or hazardous chemicals. It is much harder to remember to worry about things you can’t see.
While the majority of the world are unable to see RF-EMF Radiation, investors, oligarchs, and distributors see RF-EMF as a financial opportunity to profit off the global population, regardless of what happens to them. Exciting opportunities and social connections are reliant on this potentially hazardous technology. With the rise of 5G quickly becoming the standard requirement for breakthrough innovations, its installment and existence poses even more encouragement for existing technologies to “make the switch” to 5G. Will humanity see more symptoms of RF-EMF Radiation as 5G becomes officially implemented across the world?