On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children
from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation:
The Case of Digital Technologies in the Home,Classroom and Society
Professor Tom Butler

Contents
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................ 2
Introduction ...................................................................... 3
Do existing Standards on Wireless Digital Technologies protect
Children? ........................................................................ 3
Why are Independent Scientific Studies more Trustworthy? .. 4
What is the Reaction to the Mounting Evidence? .................. 5
How can we make Sense of the Difference of Opinion among
Scientists? ...................................................................... 5
What is the Significance of the U.S. NTP Study? .................... 6
What is the Proof of the Potential Toxicity and Carcinogenicityof RFR? .......................................................................... 7
What is the Evidence from Epidemiological Studies? ............... 8
What are Implications for Childhood RFR Exposure? ........... 11
What are the Risks to Children of RFR Exposure In Utero? .. 11
What are the Biological Mechanisms that Produce Ill-health inChildren and Adults? ........................................................ 12
What is the Evidence that Microwave RFR Promotes theDevelopment of Existing Cancers? ..................................... 14
Why are Existing Standards Unsafe? .................................. 15
Here be Dragons! .......................................................... 16
Why are Children using WiFi-enabled Devices at Significant
Risk? ........................................................................... 17
Why is there Apparent Ambiguity in the Perceived Risk of WiFi
RFR? ............................................................................ 18
Why are the Risks to Children Growing? ........................... 20
What do Insurance Companies, Regulators, Telecoms Operators
and Lawyers have to say about the Risks? .......................... 21
Conclusions ..................................................................... 22
The Last Word belongs to the Philosophy of Science .......... 26
About the Author ............................................................. 27
References ...................................................................... 28

1

On the Clear Evidence of the Risks
to Children from Non-Ionizing
Radio Frequency Radiation: The
Case of Digital Technologies in theHome, Classroom and Society“The level of proof required to justify action for healthprotection should be less than that required to constitutecausality as a scientific principle”
Professor Rainer Frentzel-Beyme MD

Abstract
Children’s health and well-being is under significant threat fromeveryday digital technologies, as the past 15 years have seen the
proliferation of microwave non-ionizing radio frequency radiation(RFR) devices and related communication systems in the home,school and society. The safety standards for such devices—
smartphones, tablets etc.—and the systems that serve them,were based on the proven thermal effects of microwave radiationin adults, not children. As comprehensive research publishedbetween 1969-1976 by the U.S. Naval Medical Research Instituteindicates, scientists have long been aware of equally harmful
non-thermal effects—e.g. the risks of developing cancers,
neurological, neurodegenerative, and other pathophysiologicalproblems. However, physicists and engineers have operated on
the theory that non-ionizing RFR could not directly damage
human DNA and lead to cancer, as it was far less powerful thanionizing radiation (x-rays, nuclear etc.). That theory has beensolidly and roundly refuted, as this paper illustrates.
Nevertheless, industry-funded scientists continue to hold that
non-thermal effects do not exist. However, thousands of
independent research studies have demonstrated that lowintensity RFR elicits a range of pathophysiological conditions inexperimental animals and humans. This is why parents,
educators and governments should be alarmed, be better
informed, and take immediate and appropriate action. This brief
research review aims to inform by presenting the findings ofscientific research, in a balanced, objective manner, on the risks
to children. This information is based on proven scientific theories
and clear empirical evidence. The paper concludes by offering
practical advice on how the risks to children, and indeed adults,
can be minimised.

2

from private and public antennae. Add tothis the near-field RFR from digital devices
such as cell phones, smart phones, iPads,
Kindles, laptops, children’s toys, smart
meters, wearable devices, and Internet ofThings. Also not to be ignored are Bluetooth
devices.

Introduction
Children’s health is at risk from everyday
wireless digital technologies. Why? The past
15 years witnessed the proliferation ofnear-field microwave non-ionizing Radio
Frequency Radiation (RFR) devices in thehome, school and society. However, farfield RFR from WiFi access points (AP) androuters, and at a wider level, 2, 3, 4 and 5G
cellular telecommunications antennae, alsopose significant risks, as extant scientificresearch demonstrates.

Do existing Standards on Wireless
Digital Technologies protect Children?
The telecommunications industry and theBig
Techsector,relatedindustry
associations, regulators on both sides of theAtlantic, and standards bodies such as theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), and the International
Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP), focus exclusively on
providing safety standards for the thermal
effects of RFR. They effectively ignore or
deny
theexistenceof
non-thermal
effects.3,4The cumulative body of research, which
includes scientific findings from laboratory
experiments and epidemiological studies,
provides clear evidence of the threats tohuman health and well-being from nonionizing RFR. 1 However, the risks to thehealth and well-being of children was neverconsidered when the safety standards weredeveloped. This creates a dilemma for all,particularly for parents and educators, as
the evidence on the risks to human healthand well-being associated with widespreadand indiscriminate exposure to RFR is clear
and unambiguous, with children being
particularly at risk.2

In the US, the significant clinical andbiological effects of RFR were identified bynaval researchers in their review of Soviet
and Eastern-Bloc studies at a symposium in
1969.5 Subsequently, in 1976, the US Naval
Medical Research Institute published abibliography of 3,700 scientific papers on
the thermal and non-thermal biological

The figure below indicates the common farfield sources of RFR in the environment

Figure 1 From 2G to 5G: RFR Unseen, Unheard, Untouched and Not Understood3

effects of RFR6: this was the last of a seriesof supplements to the original report in
1972. 7 The body of scientific evidence on
the health implications of the non-thermal
effects of RFR has grown exponentiallysince.

find significant health risks such as DNA
damage (64%), neurological effects (72%),
and oxidative stress (90%). 10 The weightof objective scientific evidence has always
indicated significant risks to human health—these risks are magnified significantly
where children are concerned.

As with the tobacco industry before it, thetelecommunications industry has busy
challenging all scientific findings that
identify
healthrisks
withwireless
technologies. Not only does it have aconvenient lacuna, when it comes to thebody of research prior to 1976, it has beenpushing back, conducting its own studies,some, but not all, of which deny theexistence of non-thermal effects. However,has a record of conveniently burying its own
inconvenient truths. No pun intended, but
the telecoms industry has taken a leaf outof the tobacco industry handbook whencountering
independentstudiesor
explaining away research findings datingback to the 1930s viz. “A demand for[more] scientific proof is always a formulafor inaction and delay and usually the firstreaction of the guilty … in fact scientificproof has never been, is not and should not
be the basis for political and legal action.”8
The same playbook was employed by the oiland coal industries when it came to global
warming. One can see similar demands formore evidence and studies as thetelecommunications industry and its fundedscientists, particularly those in pseudoindependent bodies such as the ICNIRP,
challenge the overwhelming body of
independent research.

In 2012, Dr. Ben Goldacre published Bad
Pharma. In a devastating evidence-based
treatise on the pharmaceutical industry,
Goldacre concluded:“Drugs are tested by the people who
manufacture them, in poorly designed
trials, on hopelessly small numbers of
weird,
unrepresentative
patients,
andanalysed using techniques which are flawedby design, in such a way that they
exaggerate the benefits of treatments.
Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce
resultsthatfavourthe
manufacturer…Medicine is broken ... We liketo imagine that medicine is based onevidence, and the results of fair tests. In
reality, those tests are often profoundly
flawed. We like to imagine that doctors arefamiliar with the research literature, whenin reality much of it is hidden from them bydrug companies …We like to imagine that
regulators only let effective drugs onto themarket, when in reality they approve
hopeless drugs, with data on side effects
casually
withheld
fromdoctorsandpatients.”11This is not the product of a conspiracy
theorist, it is a factual account of industry
practices by a respected researcher andmedical journalist. Replace ‘drugs’ in thisexcerpt by wireless digital technologies andpatients with users and it could have been
written to describe the activities of thetelecommunications industry. Regulators inthis industry, such as the FCC, are as
ineffective
as
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration (FDA) or their European
counterparts.
Large
corporations
andtelecommunication companies, from Apple
to Samsung, Cisco to Vodafone, lobby
governmentsforfavourable‘safety’standards for their devices and equipment.
They use their market power to keep thestatus quo. They bury safety notices in the

Why are Independent Scientific Studies
more Trustworthy?
It is an interesting fact that independentscientific studies are two and a half times
more likely to find evidence of biologicaleffects and health risks than industryfunded studies.9 It is also generally agreed
that independent studies have greater
scientific validity, due to the absence of
conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, Dr.
Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the
University of Washington, reports that all
studies conducted between 1990 and 20174

small print or omit them altogether. They
know the risks and they do not care about
our children or grandchildren. Recent‘phone-gate’ scandals in France and the
U.S. bear testament to an industry thatcannot be trusted to self-regulate.12,13

fields,includingRFR,]
affectslivingorganisms at levels well below mostinternational and national guidelines. Effects
include increased cancer risk, cellularstress, increase in harmful free radicals,
genetic damages, structural and functionalchanges of the reproductive system,
learning and memory deficits, neurologicaldisorders, and negative impacts on general
well-being in humans.”

The non-thermal effect ‘denial problem’
exists because of the multi-trillion dollar
commercial and economic value of wirelesstechnologies, coupled with the risk oflitigation. From the 1990s, this had
telecommunications and related industry
associations ‘capture’ regulatory agencies,
such as the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), 14 to engage indisinformation and manipulate the press, 15
and to participate in the ‘institutional
corruption’ of scientists, their universities,
and governments. 16 The net result of thisstandard business-operating procedure isthat humans are unknowingly exposed tohealth risks. Governments are willing
partners in this and should be taking theside of citizens not industry interests. While
politicians and policy makers behaved likeostriches, the related health risks haverisen significantly with the emergence of
5G.

Industry-funded scientists and the majorityof those in the ICNIRP are unconcerned andsee little risk, apart from thermal effects,
which they say the public are protectedagainst by extant safety standards. Believe
it or not, such differences of scientificopinion have bedeviled scientific progress
across all disciplines. Hence, the tendency
for scientists to be biased, to cling todominant paradigms, and resist change inthe face of scientific evidence is wellacknowledged,18 and this is particularly true
in relation to the wireless paradigm.4, 14, 19
The following section will help the reader
understand this contradiction better.

How can we make Sense of the
Difference of Opinion among Scientists?

What is the Reaction to the Mounting
Evidence?

Sir Karl Popper was the foremost
philosopher of science in the 20th Century.
In 17th century Europe, people believed allswans were white. However, the discoveryof black swans on the Swan River inAustralia, led to the understanding that
Swans could be both black or white. Thus,
in The Logic of Scientific Discovery20 Popper
argues that “no matter how many instancesof white swans we may have observed, thisdoes not justify the conclusion that allswans are white.” Thus, a theory that allswans are white can be refuted by thesighting of just one black swan. 21 Applying
this logic to what is the dominant paradigm
on the issue of the safety of non-ionizing
radio frequency radiation, just one study ofthe existence of non-thermal effects, issufficient to scientifically refute the theory
that there are no non-thermal effects to
non-ionizing radio frequency radiation.
Fortunately, there are thousands of suchstudies.

Exposure of humans to non-ionizing radio
frequency radiation (RFR) has increased
dramatically over the past 20 years.
Epidemiological and experimental researchhighlights
theincreasedriskofpathophysiological conditions with current
exposures to near field and far field sourcesof RFR. In light of the mounting scientificevidence, in May 2015, over 200 eminentscientists launched an international appeal
to the United Nations and the WHO basedon the conviction that there is a real andpresent danger to children, in particular, by
what they consider outdated industry
standards in relation to microwave radio
frequency radiation. 17 By April 2018, 244
scientists had signed the appeal: “Thescientific basis for their collective concern is“numerous recent scientific publications
have shown that EMF [i.e. electromagnetic
5

There is a problem here, however. As
indicated by the extensive bibliography
published at the U.S. Naval Medical
Research Institute by Dr. Zory Glaser andhis team, the significant clinical andbiological effects of RFR—both thermal andnon-thermal—were identified and acceptedby Soviet and Eastern-Bloc scientists.
However, it is clear that U.S. scientists
generally accepted that there were only
thermal effects. In an extensive report in
1980, this is described as a philosophicaldifference based, perhaps, on cold-war
politics.22 However, applying Popper’s logic,
Soviet, Czech and Polish researchers rightly
posited the conjecture or theory that there
were a range of biological effects, thermal
and non-thermal—i.e. they posited theexistence of white and black swans.
Therefore, they instituted experiments tocorroborate of refute their conjectures.
However, U.S. and Western scientists
argued there were only white swans, andacted accordingly. It was only when thetroublesome issue of non-thermal effects
was raised by the EPA23 and the FDA24, thatindustry associations and industry-fundedscientists began to craft studies toundermine the non-thermal theory.

(RFR) “was designed to test the (null)
hypothesis that cell phone radiation at nonthermal exposure intensities could notcause adverse health effects, and to provide
dose-response data for any detected toxic
or carcinogenic effects.” 27 He states
unequivocally that the null hypothesis has
been falsified, in a Popperian sense, and thelink with cancer proven beyond all doubt. In
theiranalysisofprevious
humanepidemiological studies with the findings of
the NTP research, Swedish scientist
oncologists Lennart Hardell and Michael
Carlberg “conclude that there is clear
evidence that RF radiation is a humancarcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular
schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There issome evidence of an increased risk ofdeveloping thyroid cancer, and clear
evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site
carcinogen.” 28 The scientific significance isunequivocal and proves without a shadowof doubt that the black swans of nonthermal effects are very real indeed.
Thus, we can see that what physicist andphilosopher of science Thomas Kuhn
referred to as a scientific revolution andparadigm change29 is well underway in thescientific fields dealing with the risks tohuman health posed by RFR. However,vested interests—industry, political andscientific—in the dominant paradigm areresisting. Unfortunately, children will bear
the health costs, now and into the future, of
this latest paradigm war. The following
sections answers key questions that will
help the reader understand better the risks
that non-ionizing radio frequency radiation
presents to the general population, andparticularly children.

Significantly, from 1995, Dr. George Carlo
directed the industry-financed Wireless
Technology Research (WTR) project using$28.5m of funding. However, when the
WTR findings upheld the non-thermal
theory, and indicated that RFR caused
genetic damage and was a probable
carcinogen, they were rejected by theindustry, as an inconvenient truth, and Dr.
Carlo’sservices
wereimmediately
dispensed with. Dr. Carlo published an
accountofindustry
dishonesty
andmanipulation, titled “Cell Phones: Invisible
Hazards in the Wireless Age: an Insider's
Alarming Discoveries about Cancer andGenetic Damage”.25 This was not the only
account of industry misconduct and politicalmanipulation to occur during the 1990s.26

What is the Significance of the U.S.
NTP Study?
The game-changing study by the National
Toxicology Program’s (NTP) at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services
is the point of departure for the remainderof this paper’s review of the scientificresearch on mobile and wireless RFR.

Anticipating the evidence presented in thenext major section, this paper notes Dr.
Ron Melnick’s statement, presented in
2019, that the National Toxicology Program(NTP) study on radio frequency radiation

In 1999, the US Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices
6and Radiological Health commissioned the
National Toxicology Program study on thepotential toxicity and carcinogenicity of
RFR. 30 The FDA’s concerns followed theemergence and widespread use of first
generation cell phone devices in the early
1980s and second generation (2G) systems
in the 1990s. The health focus andassociated safety standards were, and stillare, centred on the thermal effects (i.e.
heating of tissues from microwaves) andnot on the non-thermal effects. To be sure,the findings of extant research at the time
were mixed, with no clear evidence either
wayof
potential
negative
healthimplications of low-intensity RFR, especiallywhere cancer was concerned.31

the existing literature on the higher
frequencies intended for use in the 5G
network
andisworkingtobetterunderstand the biological basis for thecancer findings reported in earlier studies
on RFR with 2G and 3G technologies.”

What is the Proof of the Potential
Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of RFR?
In 2011 the IARC classified WiFi andmicrowave radiation from cordless andmobile phones as a possible Class 2B
carcinogen.
While
the
findings
ofepidemiological studies have been debated,and chiefly focus on the long-term
development of brain tumours, a recent
review of such studies is unequivocal andstates that “[m]obile phone radiation
causes brain tumors and should beclassified as a probable human carcinogen(2A)” by the WHO’s International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC).34 However,the new evidence presented herein hasscientists conceding that it should bereclassified as a Class 1 human carcinogen.

On November 1st 2018, the final report of a
10-year $30m comprehensive study by US
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences’ National Toxicology Program(NTP) confirmed that radio frequency
radiation (RFR) from 2G and 3G cell phones
caused cancer in animals. 32 That study
clearly refutes the long-held theory that
non-ionizing radiation, such as RFR, cannot
cause cancers or lead to other effects on
the health and well-being of humans.33

In the press release accompanying the NTP
Final Report, Dr. John Bucher, Senior
Scientist, at the National Toxicology
Program stated, “We have concluded that
there was clear evidence that male rats
developed cancerous heart tumors called
malignant schwannomas. The occurrence ofmalignant schwannomas in the hearts ofmale rats is the strongest cancer finding in
our study.” 35 Categorising the major
findings as “clear evidence” is significant as
this is the highest burden of proof in ascientific study by the NTP. It employs 4levels of evidence. Other findings werecategorised as Some Evidence (brain
tumours such as glioma and adrenal gland
tumours) and Equivocal (cancers of theprostate and pituitary glands). None of thefindings were at level 4, No Evidence. The
paper discusses these findings in thecontext of previous research.

The findings of this study opens an ethicalPandora’s Box for mobile phone companies
and BigTechs such as Apple, Facebook,
Google and others, as the use of microwave
RFR technologies underpin their businessmodels. Furthermore, the NTP adds “5G iscurrently emerging and will eventually
overtake the existing 2G, 3G, and 4G
technology. In the meantime, consumers
will continue to be exposed to RFR fromthese sources in the 700-2700 MHz range.
As the 5G network is implemented, some ofthe signals will use the same lower
frequencies as the older technology
previously studied by NTP. Additionally,
concern has been raised because the 5G
network will also use higher frequencies, up
to 60,000 MHz, thereby exposing wirelessconsumers to a much broader spectrum of
frequencies. The higher frequencies, known
as millimeter waves, can rapidly transmit
enormous amounts of data with increased
network capacity compared to current
technologies…NTP is currently evaluating

The NTP study was not the first of its kind—
it confirms the findings of previous researchon the links between near field RFR
exposure and various cancers—it is themost comprehensive, however. Since 19997

when the FDA flagged the issue of potential
non-thermal effects of microwave radiationin cellphones, a wealth of experimental andepidemiological research demonstrated thevery real biological effects of RFR on thebrain, nervous systems, hearts and testes
of mammals, including humans. Cancers
aside, many of these studies consistently
report a range of side-effects in humans,from sleep deprivation and headaches, toneurologicaldamage,andlearning
disorders.1,3,7 The NTP study also reported
that DNA damage (strand breaks) was
significantly increased in the brains of rats
and mice exposed to RFR. The findings also
reported reduced birth weights of rat pups
whose mothers were exposed to RFR, in
addition to cardiomyopathy of the rightventricle in the rats studied.36

also the largest long-term study ever
performed in rats on the health effects of
RFR. Its findings are therefore of particularconcern for those, particularly children,
living near RFR sources, such as mobile
phone masts or WiFi routers.
It was with the implications of all this inmind that the California Medical Association(CMA)39 stated in 2014 that “peer reviewed
researchhasdemonstrated
adversebiological effects of wireless EMF [i.e. RFR]
including single and double stranded DNA
breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species,
immune dysfunction, cognitive processing
effects, stress protein synthesis in thebrain, altered brain development, sleep andmemory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal
behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain
tumors.” The CMA were following the leadof the American Academy of Paediatrics,
which in 2013 petitioned the US Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and to
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toreassess safety standards to RFR in order to“protect children’s health and well-being
throughout their lifetimes and reflectcurrent use patterns.” 40 That plea has
fallen on deaf ears, however.

Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, Director of the Cesare
Maltoni Cancer Research Center of theRamazzini Institute, which had recently
conducted separate research that echoed
the findings of the NTP Study, took issue
with the ICNIRP—“We are scientists, ourrole is to produce solid evidence for hazard
and risk assessment. Underestimating theevidence from carcinogen bioassays anddelays in regulation have already provenmany times to have severe consequences,
as in the case of asbestos, smoking andvinyl chloride.”37 In the Ramazzini Institutestudy, Dr Belpoggi’s colleagues Falcioni etal. presented their “findings on far field
exposure to RFR [that] are consistent withand reinforce the results of the NTP study
on near field exposure, as both reported anincrease in the incidence of tumors of thebrain and heart in RFR-exposed SpragueDawley rats. These tumors are of the same
histotype of those observed in someepidemiological studies on cell phone users.
These
experimental
studies
providesufficient evidence to call for the reevaluation of IARC conclusions regarding
the carcinogenic potential of RFR in
humans.”38 Again to emphasize, this study
is notable as it focused on the health
implications of far field RFR sources onhumans living or working in the proximity ofmobile phone base stations, as opposed tooperating 2 & 3 G handsets near field. It is

Given the significance of the NTP findings
there was a muted response from the press.
Coverage from the New York Times argued
that the focus on 2G and 3G technologies
somehow weakened the study’s findings. 41
This is a spurious argument, as 4G
Smartphones are backward compatible with
2G and 3G, and from a biologicalperspective, of greater concern, as is 5G.
More worryingly the ICNIRP decided thatthe findings did not provide a reason torevise current (i.e. over 21-year-old) RFR
exposure standards. However, Dr. Ronald
Melnick rebutted the ICNIRP analysis
stating it contained several false andmisleading statements.27

What is the Evidence from
Epidemiological Studies?
After more than 20 years of widespread cell
phone use, one would expect to see a risein cancers, particularly brain tumours. The
evidence here is mounting, however, as
8

new studies in the US note a disturbing risein cancers of the Central Nervous System,
particularly in adolescents. There is also amarked increase in other cancers and also
neurodegenerative
diseasessuch
asAlzheimer’s Disease.

unambiguous. In the UK in 1995, 553
frontal lobe tumours were diagnosed inpatients, while 1231 were found in 2015.
Likewise, 334 temporal lobe tumours werereported in 1995, while 994 were diagnosed
in 2015. The increase in these cancers of
the CNS are clear and unambiguous. The
authors of this study argue that:

While experimental and non-experimental
case control and other epidemiologicalstudies generally emanate from naturalscientists, in 2019 two social scientists
reported “that mobile phone subscription
rates
are
positively
andstatisticallysignificantly associated with death rates
from brain cancer 15-20 years later. As afalsification test, we find few positive
associations
betweenmobilephone
subscription rates and deaths from rectal,
pancreatic, stomach, breast or lung cancer
or ischemic heart disease.” 42 This 25-yearcross country analysis provides solid but
indirect evidence of the link between mobile
phone use and cancer. However, we needto dig deeper into the available evidence
from the natural and life sciences tounderstand probability and causality.

“The rise cannot be fully accounted for bypromotion of lower–grade tumours, random
chance or improvement in diagnostic
techniques as it affects specific areas of thebrain and only one type of brain tumour.
Despite the large variation in case numbers
by age, the percentage rise is similar acrossthe age groups, which suggests widespreadenvironmental or lifestyle factors may be
responsible. This article reports incidence
data trends and does not provide additional
evidence for the role of any particular risk
factor.”
It is significant that the frontal andtemporal lobes receive the greatest
exposure to RFR from smartphones andtablets.

The French CERENAT study is the first to beconsidered. It reported that “Consistent
with previous studies, we found anincreased risk [of brain tumours] in theheaviestusers[ofmobilephones],especially for gliomas.” 43 The study found
the risks were higher for temporal lobe
tumours, as well as gliomas, withoccupational and urban mobile phone users
at highest risk.

A comprehensive review of the incidence ofprimary brain and other central nervous
system tumors diagnosed in the UnitedStates during the period 2009–2013, foundquite small, but statistically significant
increases in some categories of CNS
tumours and none in others. 45 To be sure,in this study published in 2016, the increasein the incidence of tumours reported were
not as alarming as those in the UK study.
However, this is only the first in a series
demonstrating an upward trend.

A research review of the incidence of
glioblastoma multiforme tumours in England
during 1995–2015 reported a “a sustained
and highly statistically significant ASR[(incidence rate)] rise in glioblastoma
multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR
for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0,
with annual case numbers rising from 983
to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hiddenin the overall data by a reduced incidence oflower-grade tumours.” 44 The study did not
focus on RFR as the cause, so the findings
must be considered ‘open to interpretation’in this regard, as other environmental
mechanisms cannot be ruled out. However,the following figures are clear andA related U.S. study echoed the US
findings, but found an “an increasing
medulloblastoma incidence in children aged
10–14 years.” 46 Another recent study on
childrenfoundstatistically-significant
changes in several sub-types of CNS
cancers, notably gliomas, in the period
1998-2013. 47 The latter study concluded
that “Continued surveillance of pediatric
CNS tumors should remain a priority given
their significant contribution to pediatriccancer deaths.”

9

In keeping with studies that provide
compelling evidence for concern, a recent
review study of epidemiological studies onbrain and salivary gland tumours in relation
to mobile phone use found the cumulative
evidence to be inconclusive, but indicatedthat such cancers may have a long latency(i.e. greater than 15 years) and clear
evidence may emerge in the future.
Nevertheless,scientists
argue
that
childhood use of RFR devices is ofsignificant concern.48 There is also evidence
that RFR from cell phones may be triggeringbreast cancer in young women who carry
their devices on or near their breasts. 49 In
addition, extensive studies by the HardellGroup demonstrate increases in cancers of
the CNS in Sweden. 50 These findings havebeen recently replicated in Denmark.51

A senior epidemiologist at US healthcare
provider Kaiser Permanente, Dr. De-Kun Li,
believes that while the increase in brain
tumors is worrisome, increases in colorectal
cancer is even more troubling, particularly
as he believes microwave radio frequency
radiation is implicated. In 2019, the journal
Cancer described a rising incidence ofcolorectal cancer among young Americans,with rectal cancers being slightly higher
than colon cancers.55 Another contemporary
study
found
significant
increasesincolorectal cancer among people under 50 in
Denmark, New Zealand, and the UK since2009. 56 Yet another study of colorectal
cancer in young adults in 20 European
countries over the last 25 years found thatover the last 10 years, the incidence ofcolorectal cancer increased 8% per year
among people in their 20s, by 5% for
people in their 30s, and by 1.6% for thosein their 40s.57 Dr. De-Kun Li maintains that
“When placed in trouser pockets, thephones are in the vicinity of the rectum andthe distal colon and these are the sites ofthe largest increases in cancer.”Whilephones go into standby mode where
telephone calls are concerned, most young
people have WiFi, Bluetooth and 4G data
enabled. This increases the level andincidence of exposure, as their apps keep
their smartphones active on a continuous
basis. Thus, other environmental, diet andlifestyle factors aside, wireless microwave
radio frequency radiation is strongly
implicated as a direct or indirect (e.g. cocarcinogen) in this latest ‘uptick’ in cancers.

However, more recent studies continue toring alarm bells. A new study in The Lancet
Neurology reports that “CNS cancer is
responsible for substantial morbidity andmortality
worldwide,andincidenceincreased
between
1990
and
2016.
Significant
geographicalandregional
variation in the incidence of CNS cancer
might be reflective of differences indiagnoses and reporting practices or
unknown environmental and genetic risk
factors. Future efforts are needed toanalyze CNS cancer burden by subtype.”52
In a general context, the U.S. Center for
Disease Control and related research findsthat non-Hodgkin lymphomas, central
nervous system tumors (including brain
cancers), renal, hepatic and thyroid
tumours have increased recently among
adolescent Americans.53, 54 When comparing
the Annual Average Total and Average
Annual Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates forChildren and Adolescents of Brain and Other
Central Nervous System Tumors from 2009201345 and 2012-201654 an increase in total
cases of 0-19 year olds from 23,522 to
24,931 is found, with the annual averageincreasing from a rate of 5.70 in 2012 to
6.06 to 2016. Thus, many scientists
conclude that microwave radio frequency
radiation has a significant role to play in theincreasing rates of particular types of CNS
cancers being reported.

Again the weight of the scientific evidence isconsiderable. If the findings of the above
studies are accurate and generalizable, thenthe rates for frontal and temporal lobe
tumours may increase significantly, as they
more than doubled over a 20-year period in
the UK,44 or increase in line with high RFR
exposure,19 as RFR is now accepted aseither a causal or a contributory mechanismin the occurrence of brain tumours andother cancers.27, 28, 34, 38, 42, 43
Few studies take into account is that the
number of RFR sources has increased
dramatically throughout the home, school
and work environments over the past 10
10years, with WiFi routers, 2-4G enabled
tablets, the proliferation of WiFi enabled
devices and wearables, and the number ofmobile phones per person.1

found that the bone marrow in a child’sskull absorbs microwave radiation at a level
10 times greater than that of an adult.60 In
addition, a child’s eyes absorb higher levelsof microwave radiation than adults.61 If, as
the latest scientific evidence indicates, lowlevel microwave radiation poses a healthrisk, and if safety standards are outdated,then it is logical to assume that children are
at significant risk from any device radiating
microwave radiation.62

To compound matters even further, one of
the significant findings of the NTP study was
the presence of RFR promoted the growthof tumours caused by other carcinogens.32,
33
The findings of the cumulative body ofresearch are objective, and particularly
disturbing where children are concerned.
Rigorous experimental studies on laboratory
rats have found that daily exposures to lowlevels of microwave radiation, such as thatemitted by WiFi devices, causes significant
biological changes in a range of majororgans such as the brains, hearts,
reproductive systems, and eyes of the rats
being studied.58

What are the Risks to Children of RFR
Exposure In Utero?
A prospective cohort study of 913 pregnant
women conducted by Dr. De-Kun Li and his
team at US healthcare provider Kaiser
Permanente examined the association
between exposure to non-ionizing radiationfrom low-frequency EMF sources and therisk of miscarriage. After controlling for
multiple other factors, women who were
exposed to higher levels had 2.72 times therisk of miscarriage (hazard ratio = 2.72,
95% CI: 1.42–5.19) than those with lower
exposures.
The
increasedrisk
ofmiscarriage was consistently observed
regardless of the EMF sources. Li et al.
(2017) link the results from this study with
contemporary epidemiological research on
the links between far-field exposure to RFR
frommobilephoneantennae
andmiscarriage63 and near-field exposure linked
with mobile phone use during pregnancy(Mahmoudabadi et al., 2017) 64 . However,follow-up studies on children born tomothers with the same high levels of
exposure found that in-utero exposure wasrelated to increased risk in children of thefollowing conditions:

What are Implications for Childhood
RFR Exposure?
All this has profound implications for theincreasing
numbersofchildrenandadolescents exposed to RFR on a daily
basis. And the risks to children are
considerable: “Because cells are rapidly
dividing and organ systems are developing
during childhood and adolescence, exposure
to carcinogens during these early life stages
is a major risk factor for cancer later in life.
Because young people have many expected
years of life, the clinical manifestations ofcancers caused by carcinogens have more
time
in
which
to
developduringcharacteristically long latency periods.” 59 A
recent study demonstrated that in a child’s
brain the hippocampus and hypothalamus
absorb 1.6–3.1 times the microwave energyof an adult brain. The absorption rate is 2.5
times higher than an adult’s where a child’s
cerebellum is concerned. The same studyAsthma 2.7 times;
Obesity 5 times;
ADHD 2.9 times. 65, 66

Research conducted at Professor Hugh
Taylor’s research laboratory
at Yalecomments on the significant increase in theincidence of ADHD. Taylor and his team
posit that one or more environmental
factors are involved. The paper showed thatprenatal in-utero exposure of pregnant mice
to real cell phone RFR produced three highly1

It is significant that 4G, 5G and WiGi 2.4 G-5G use
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing OFDM
with pulsed microwave RFR signals. Research citedherein found that this type of RFR has the greatest
impact on biological systems, whether it is rats, mice orhumans.

11

statistically significant changes observed inmice exposed in-utero. These are: (1) adecreaseinmemoryfunction;(2)
hyperactivity; and (3) an increase inanxiety. The researchers conclude “thatthese behavioral changes were due toalteredneuronal
developmental
programming.”67

various human diseases including various
cancers. ROS are also implicated in diabetes
and neurodegenerative diseases”74.
Research on mobile phone RFR and WiFi
pulsedmicrowave
signalshavedemonstrated that they produce elevatedlevels of reactive oxygen species (ROS),
which in turn cause oxidative stress incell.75,76, 77 Oxidative stress is caused by animbalance between ROS and the counter
effects of antioxidants that help detoxify
and repair biological systems. Thus, thebody normally employs antioxidant defence
mechanisms to counter ROS and help avoid
diseases such as cancer, which are triggedby oxidative stress and its tendency tocause strand breaks in a cell’s DNA.

These results have been replicated inseveral subsequent experimental studies onrodents. 68 , 69 70 However, there are also a
number of epidemiological studies that
identify similar outcomes in children.71,72
These studies provide evidence for an
association between prenatal exposure tocell phone RFR and the development of
ADHD. Clearly, this is a complex matter,made even more so by the fact that there
was no hope of a paradigm change, untilthe ‘smoking gun’ provided by the NTP
study removed any doubt that RFR can act
directly, via identified mechanisms, toinduce tumours in biological organisms
exposed to radiation levels within thosepermitted by existing standards and towhich users are typically exposed. Thisshould stimulate a reassessment of therisks in relation to all RFR use, particularly
children, as “[t]he level of proof required tojustify action for health protection should beless than that required to constitutecausality as a scientific principle”.73 We are
far beyond that level of proof where RFR isconcerned.

A raft of studies indicate that a chain of
biologicalmechanisms
producestheobserved negative health outcomes inlaboratory animals and humans. Martin Pall,
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry andBasic Medical Sciences, Washington State
University points to the role of voltagegated calcium channel (VGCC) activation,
which is triggered by RFR sources such as
2-5G and WiFi, as being one of primarycausal mechanisms.78
In his review published in 2018, Professor
Pall cites over 120 empirical research
papers in support of his thesis. Thus, this isfurther support for the cumulative body ofevidence which refutes the proposition that
RFR has no biological effects, other thanlocal thermal effects on tissue. Professor
Pall’s earlier 2013 review paper cites 22
research studies that specifically point to
the role played by VGCC activation. 79 The
number of studies replicating experimentsthat corroborate this theory has grownsignificantly, while none appear to refute it.
Figure 1 illustrates the posited mechanisms,
pathways and outcomes. A detailed
discussion is beyond the scope of thispaper,
however,
severalimportantmediatingmechanisms
andpathophysiologicaloutcomesarenow
discussed.

What are the Biological Mechanismsthat Produce Ill-health in Children and
Adults?
While the direct
effectsofcertaincarcinogens are widely acknowledged,
research illustrates that “carcinogens may
also partly exert their effect by generating
reactive oxygen species (ROS) during their
metabolism. Oxidative damage to cellular
DNA can lead to mutations and may,therefore, play an important role in theinitiation and progression of multistage
carcinogenesis…Elevated levels of ROS anddown regulation of ROS scavengers andantioxidant enzymes are associated with

A review of scientific studies by Kesari et al.
in 2013 concluded that relatively brief,
regular, and also long-term use of
12

Figure 2 Mechanisms and Pathways to Pathophysiological Effects (Reproduced from Pall 2018)

microwave devices resulted in negative
impacts on biological systems, especiallythe brain. 80 This review by Kesari et al.
squarely highlights the role played byreactive oxygen species (ROS) as a key
mechanism (generated by exposure to
microwaves) in producing serious negative
effects in living organisms. Exposure toionizing radiation has been long known to
disturb the balance between ROS and theantioxidants that neutralise them. Usually
this imbalance results in a high probability
that the subject will develop cancers andother chronic conditions. A wealth of studies
now illustrate, however, that non-ionizing
radiation emitted from smart phones,
cordless phones, WiFi, Bluetooth and otherwireless technologies, such as thosepowering the Internet of Things (IoT) canseverely disturb this balance also, by
amplifying ROS, suppressing antioxidants,
and increasing oxidative stress. There issubstantial evidence that oxidative damage
to cellular proteins, lipids and DNA is at theroot cause of many of the ill-effects of
microwave RFR. Most worrying in all of thisis that scientists have found that the
mutagenic effects on the DNA of living cells
occurs under low-levels of exposure to thepulsed microwave radiation found in mostof these devices. (This is discussed below insome detail.) The consequences for children
are obvious, given their greater exposurelevels and susceptibility to health ill-effects
and also that their bodies are constantly
growing and developing.81, 82
A recent study illustrates relatively low levelof exposure required to produce adverse
biological effects. Chauhan et al.58 publishedthe results of their experiment on Wistar
rats in 2016. The rats in this experimentwere exposed to RFR at 25% of the normal
level at the human ear and 15% of the level
when carried for 2 hours per day for 35
days. Autopsies of the rats exposed to RFR
revealed significantly high levels of ROS inthe livers, brains and spleens of the
exposed animals. In addition, histologicalchanges were also found in brains, livers,
testes, kidneys and spleens. In line with awealth of other similar studies, theresearchers concluded that the “results
indicate possible implications of such
exposure on human health.” Earlier studies
found that rat brains exposed to RFR
exhibited an increase in single strand DNA
breaks and chromosomal damage in brain
13

cells. Thus, it is beyond doubt that thesubstantial increase in ROS in living cells
under RFR at low signal strength could becausing a broad spectrum of healthdisorders and diseases, including cancer, inhumans and particularly in children.
Certainly, recent studies have provided
significant empirical evidence to support
this theory.

scientificevidence
emergingfromlaboratory experiments such as the NTP
study.
Dr Christopher J. Portier, Associate Director,
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and Director, Office of Risk
Assessment Research, co-authored anarticle with Dr Wendy Leonard in Scientific
American, following the initial release of the
NTP study findings in 2016. They conclude
that, “Cellphones probably cause cancer if
the exposure is close enough, long enough,and in sufficient magnitude. We don’t yet
know the risk for a given level of exposurein humans. We need more data in this area,
not only for cellphones, but for bluetooth
devices, WiFi and all the other RF-EMF
devices out there. Until then, reduce yourexposure whenever possible.” 87 Arguments
presented earlier, and also in the concluding
sections of this paper, indicate that there issufficient scientific evidence to halt any
further deployment of wireless technologies
in the environment, due to the nature of therisks posed.

Another recently discovered mechanism
found to affect the growth of glioblastoma
multiforme tumours in humans is the p53
protein. 83 Glioblastoma are the mostcommon and most malignant of the glial
tumours found in the brain and central
nervous system.44 Akhavan-Sigari et al.
studied 63 patients with this type of tumourand found that patients that used “mobile
phones for ≥3 hours a day show aconsistent pattern of increased risk for the
mutant type of p53 gene expression in the
peripheral zone of the glioblastoma, and
that
this
increasewassignificantly
correlated with shorter overall survival
time.” 84 This is a significant finding.
More worrying is a recent study conductedon the Swedish National Inpatient Register:“The main finding in this study wasincreasing rate of brain tumor of unknown
type in the central nervous system.” 84 The
research being conducted by the ‘HardellGroup’ in Sweden, which is responsible forthis study, has consistently demonstrated alink between mobile phone use and cancer.
Two recent studies from the group confirm
the link between RFR and cancers inhumans. In the first, both mobile andcordless phones were associated with anincreased the risk of glioma, a type of brain
tumour. 85 It found that the “First use ofmobile or cordless phone before the age of
20 gave higher OR [odds ratio] for glioma
than in later age groups.” Which indicatesthat children or teenagers are at significant
risk. In the second, researchers found thatthe rise in thyroid cancers in Sweden was
linked with increase in exposure to RFR. 86
To be sure, epidemiological studies such as
the latter are akin to looking for a needle ina haystack, and are criticised by some as
being flawed, however their findings need
to be viewed in a new light given the

What is the Evidence that Microwave
RFR Promotes the Development of
Existing Cancers?
One important recent finding is that RFR
has cocarcinogenic effects.
In research
published in 2010, carcinogen-treated mice
exposed to RFR demonstrated significant
tumour-promoting effects. 88 A study byLerchl et al. in 2015 replicated the earlier
study using higher numbers of animals inboth the control and experimental groups. 89
Lerchl et al. confirmed and extended theprevious findings. They report that numbersof tumours of the lungs and livers in
exposed animals in were significantly higher
than in the control groups. They also
reported significantly elevated lymphomasthrough RFR exposure. The scientists
hypothesized that cocarcinogenic effects
may have been “caused by metabolicchanges due to exposure.” It is significant,and extremely worrying, that tumourpromoting effects were produced “at low tomoderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4
W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits
14

for the users of mobile phones.” Theauthors conclude that their “findings mayhelp to understand the repeatedly reported
increased incidences of brain tumors inheavy users of mobile phones.”Themechanisms presented in the previous
section help explain why and how RFR
exposures induce the observed findings inthese and other studies.

recent correspondence between Washington
DC law firm, Swankin & Turner, who sent a
letter to the FCC indicates. The letter
questioned whether the agency adequately
enforced its cell phone radiation exposure
limits. 90 This claim was confirmed byresearch performed on behalf of The
Chicago Tribune.13 This situation is evenworse in the EU, as the recent report fromthe French regulator indicates. The Agence
Nationale des Fréquences (ANFR) revealed
that 9 out of 10 phones across all
manufacturers exceeded the manufacturer’s
reported radiation test levels in positions
other than the head and where the phone isin contact with the body. 91 This revelation
does not inspire confidence in with theregulator, who initially refused to disclose
the findings, nor the industry. Indeed, it issignificant that research sponsored by The
Chicago Tribune in 2019 discovered that
Apple and Samsung smartphones breached
FCC regulations significantly.13 This resulted
in a Class Action against Apple in the US.

Why are Existing Standards Unsafe?
The existing standards for mobile (2,3, &4G) and WiFi are considered unsafe. 5G
technology increases the risk considerably,as Professor Martin Pall indicates in his new
research monograph 5G Risk: The Scientific
Perspective.
The
US
FederalCommunications
Commission (FCC) mandates that “The safe
limit for a mobile phone user is an SAR of
1.6 watts per kg (1.6 W/kg), averaged over
one gram of tissue, and compliance withthis limit must be demonstrated before FCC
approval is granted for marketing of aphone in the United States.” Surprisingly
the safe limit in the EU is 2 W/Kg, a much
weaker standard of protection. Here the EU
follows the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNRP)
standard set in 1998. This based on
decades old–1970s and 1980s—studies oflimited relevance to humans, and children
in particular.

If a smartphone is on, but not being used
for calls, text, or to browse online, it stillcommunicates with cell phone base towers
to maintain internet access. This allows app
notifications,instant
messagetexts,
updates, and so on. So your phone is neveroff. Hence, when you carry it in yourpockets or on a belt wallet, it’s not being
operated within the safe distance and thephone manufacturer is not liable. Note thatthe safety limits for cell phones and WiFi
focus on thermal effects only. Remember
also that non-thermal effects have been
observed at much lower SAR levels fromindividual devices and also cellular basestations and WiFi router.1

SAR is the Specific Absorption Rate.
Expressed in Watts (a unit of electrical
power) per kilogram of human tissue, SAR
measures of the rate at which RFR energy isabsorbed by the human body. In the testingprocedures the FCC uses to certify that cell
phones don't exceed the 1.6 W/kg SAR
limit, the devices are tested 0.59 inches and0.98 inches (1.5cm to 2.5cm) from thebody. Hence, smartphone manufacturers
provide these guidelines buried in theirsafety information. If users operate theirdevices within these limits, which most do,they are in breach of the safe operating
limits and are more at risk from both
thermal and non-thermal effects. To makematters worse, 75% of smartphones
regularly exceed FCC safety limits, as a

Russian scientist
Dr. Yuri
Grigoriev,
Chairmanofthe
RussianNational
Committee
onNon-ionizing
Radiation
Protection (RNCNIRP) points out that“National and international regulatory limits
for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure
from cell phones and cell towers are
outdated.” 92 He argues that Western
standards are inadequate to protect humanhealth, in contrast with those in Russia,
especially where the health of children isconcerned. In Belpomme et al. study1,
15

whose authors include cancer researchers,
it is argued that “In spite of a large body ofevidence for human health hazards from
non-ionizing EMFs at intensities that do notcausemeasureabletissueheating,summarized in an encyclopaedic fashion in
the Bioinitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.
org), the World Health Organization (WHO)and governmental agencies in many
countries have not taken steps to warn of
the health hazards resulting from exposures
to EMFs at low, non-thermal intensities, norhave they set exposure standards that are
adequately health protective.”

When is laptop not a laptop? Whenit’s WiFi-enabled. Such devices mustbe 20 cm or 8” from the body— an
adult body, that is.

Here be Dragons!
The industry safety standard for WiFi wasestablished in 1996 by the FCC. It adopted
the IEEE standard for safety levels withrespect to human exposure to radio
frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz, of 1991, which was based on thatissued by the National Council on Radiation
Protection (NRCP) in 1986. This standard
covers only the thermal hazards from RFR.
The hazards covered by the FCC standard
are based on the specific absorption doserate (SAR) that produces thermal effects inbody tissue. As indicated SAR is typicallymeasured in Watts/Kilogram. So, put
simply, SAR estimates the amount ofenergy absorbed by a human body or part
thereof when exposed to an RFR signal.
While accurate, it chiefly focuses on thermal
effects of RFR.
The FCC guidelines are
based on a 4 W/Kg adverse level effectobserved in laboratory animals. This
excerpt
from
the
Code
of
FederalRegulations (CFR 47/2.1093) is instructive:

shape of a cube). Exposure may beaveraged over a time period not to exceed
30 minutes to determine compliance withgeneralpopulation/
uncontrolled
SAR
limits.”Based on existing theories and researchdata, the FCC recognised the safety
problems with WiFi and recommended
that such devices are not operated lessthan 20 cm from the human body for
30 minutes. However, as far back as 2002,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
stated that the “FCC’s exposure guideline isconsidered protective of effects arising froma thermal mechanism but not from all
possiblemechanisms.
Therefore,
thegeneralisation by many that the guidelines
protect human beings from harm by any or
all mechanisms is not justified”93. The EPA’s
reservations were justified, given researchfindings published over the past 17 years(to 2019) that refute the theory thathazards were confined to thermal effects.

“The
SAR
limitsforgeneralpopulation/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08
W/kg, as averaged over the whole body,and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6
W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue(defined as a tissue volume in the shape ofa cube). Exceptions are the parts of thehuman body treated as extremities, such as
hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae,
where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is
4 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams oftissue (defined as a tissue volume in the

We might add that at the time, the FCC
never envisaged adults carrying WiFi
enabled devices on their person, andcertainly never envisaged children using
these devices on a regular basis. Note toothat adults and children carry WiFi-enabled
smartphones on their person, less than 1
cm from their bodies and well within the 20(8”) cm limit of safe operation. This is also
true
when
they
make
WiFi-enabled
WhatsApp and Skype calls. However, today16

such devices are in widespread daily use by
childrenacrossdeveloped
countries.
Furthermore, given the observable patternsof use, the 30-minute maximum exposure
is being breached on a regular basis by both
adults and children. Thus, given thescientific evidence, it is troubling to thinkthat children are carrying or operating WiFi
devices on or near their person, breaching
the safety guidelines set by the FCC, andfor periods much, much longer than 30
minutes.

exposure and 1 μW/m2 nighttime, with 0.1
μW/m2 being the limit for sensitive
populations. 96 This is 1,000,000 to
100,000,000 times less, in terms of
permitted
exposure,
than
the
FCC
Guidelines. The EUROPAEM guidelines focus
on for the prevention, diagnosis andtreatment of EMF-related health problems
and illnesses, and are based on the Austrian
Medical Association Guidelines. However,the precautionary exposure guidelines
recommended in the Bioinitiative Report
stands at a more stringent 3–6 μW/m2. 97
Clearly children are included in the sensitive
categories as are the fetuses being carriedby pregnant women.

Opposing views come from the BigTech andtelecommunications companies, who likethe tobacco lobby before them, are arguingthat there is no danger in using WiFi
technology or mobile phones. This view isbased on the aforementioned belief that
non-ionizing radiation such as microwaves
are not powerful enough to cause damage
to human DNA. However, as Professor
Martin Pall concludes “Repeated Wi-Fi
studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative
stress,sperm/testiculardamage,neuropsychiatric effects including EEGchanges, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage,endocrinechanges,andcalcium
overload.”79

A research report on WiFi in the classroom
in 2000 by Dr. Bill Curry answers thequestion ‘what is the exposure of children ina WiFi-enabled classroom when using WiFi
devices?’98 Dr. Curry is a highly experienced
physicist, and is both conservative andmeticulous in applying accepted theory andformulae in his calculations.
As indicated, there is a significant body ofscientific evidence on hazardous nonthermal levels of microwave radiation.
EUROPAEM research demonstrates that thesafe exposure for a normal adult is 10
μW/m2 when exposed to Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz. The
safe level for children is obviously muchless. 2 Beyond this level there is a risk of
non-thermallygeneratedbiochemicalmolecular interactions that lead to oxidative
stress, among other health ill-effects. Dr.
Curry conservatively estimates from hisdata that in a typical classroom scenario,“that any one child will receive a radiationdose commensurate with a radiation densityof at least 6 - 8 μW/cm2, perhaps evenmore.” We have noted that EUROPEAM’s
safe level of adult exposure is 10 or 0.001
μW/cm2. Hence, 10,000 μW/m2 = 1
μW/cm2.
Thus, Curry’s
6-8μW/cm2translates into 60,000-80,000 μW/m2. That
is approximately 6,000-8,000 times higher
than the recommended safe exposures for
adults as per EUROPEAM, or up to 15,000
higher that the Bioinitiative guidelines.
However, if a child’s health is compromised,
this exposure could be up to 800,000 times
the safe level recommended by EUROPEAM.

Why are Children using WiFi-enabled
Devices at Significant Risk?
All WiFi devices available in Europe are FCC
compliant. FCC guidelines propose amaximum power density of 10 W/m 2 or
1,000 μW/cm2. 94 Note that this maximum
power density protects from thermal or
heating health effects only. All wirelessdevices used in the US go through a formal
FCC approval process to ensure that the
maximum allowable level when operating at
the device’s highest possible power level
does not exceeded. Recent events indicatethat self-regulation by the industry is,however, ineffective and devices regularly
break FCC limits.95
In contrast to the FCC and European
regulatory agency thermal safety levels, theEuropean Academy for Environmental
Medicine (EUROPAEM) EMF Guidelines(2016) indicates a non-thermal safety levelof 10 μW/m2 or 0.001 μW/cm2 daytime17

It is significant that when Dr. Curry
conducted his study, there was norecommended maximum non-thermal levelof exposure for adults, let alone children.

exposimeters.
Thus
actualstudent
exposures would be nearer to the levels
calculated by Dr. Curry, as opposed tothose recorded by teachers.

A study by URS in 2012 for the Los Angeles
Unified School District 99 , recommends acautionary level of 0.1 μW/cm2, (1000μW/m2) taken as a whole-body, timeaveraged value. URS maintains that this “isconsistent with accepted practice.” This
cautionary level is 10,000 times lower thanFCC regulations, and 100 times greaterthan EUROPEAM. It is also 60-80 times
lower than the estimated actual exposure
measured by DR. Curry. URS concludes that“a recommended cautionary level of 0.1
μW/cm2isattainable
withinLAUSD
classrooms.” 100 However, this is per device
and reflects protection from thermal effects
only. It says nothing about the average,
cumulative exposure from ALL nearby
devices and other sources.

It is also significant that the highest levels
measured on a teacher was 82,857 µW/m2
when he/she using a mobile phone
connecting to a cellular base station. Notethat the phone would possibly have been
the same distance from the exposimeter, asa student’s head would be from an iPad
screen, into which the WiFi antennae is
integrated. Note that the recorded level of
82,857 µW/m2 from a 4G cellphone issimilar to the power density recorded by Dr.
Curry. Furthermore, most students today
carry smartphones with 4G LTE, WiFi andBluetooth powered on, and apps running in
the background. Hence, their exposure will
be potentially higher on average, as theirsmartphone antennae and iPad WiFi
antenna, would be closer to their bodies.

A more recent, and perhaps realistic, study
was carried out in schools in Sweden.
Eighteen teachers from seven schools
participatedandcarriedbody-borne
exposimeters (EME-Spy 200) in school. The
reported results indicate that “meanexposure to RF radiation ranged from 1.1 to66.1 µW/m2. The highest mean level, 396.6µW/m2, occurred during 5 min of a lesson
when the teacher let the students stream
and watch YouTube videos. Maximum peaks
went up to 82,857 µW/m2 from mobile
phone uplink.” As indicated, the highest
mean exposure recorded on a teacher
during the whole of a lesson was 396.6µW/m2, which is nearly 40-4,000 times therecommended EUROPEAM levels or 80
times the safe limits recommended by the
Bioinitiative report.

There is a technical property of WiFi, whichin general circumstances, indicates that the
average exposure is much less than thepeak exposures, but still exceeds the
EUROPEAM guidelines. I now address thispotentially mitigating factor.

Why is there Apparent Ambiguity in thePerceived Risk of WiFi RFR?
WiFi is the common name for Wireless Local
Area
Network(WLAN)
IEEE
802.11standard. This standard is complex andevolving as engineers innovate to provide
higherbandwidth
speedsforcommunication. Take for example that the802.11a (5Ghz) and 802.11b (2.4 GHz)
revisions to the 802.11 standard wereintroduced in 1999. While 802.11a delivereda theoretical bandwidth of 54 Mbps,
802.11b delivered a total bandwidth
throughput of 11 Mbps (million bits per
second). The latter became more widelyadopted for technical and practical reasons.
Since 802.11a, subsequent revisions to the802.11 standard have employed Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
technology, the same as that used in 4G
and 5G telephony and broadband. The
802.11a/g revision (2003) increases theIt must be remembered that teachers were
either standing at the top of the classroom
or moving about the room, and not sittingin front of laptops or iPads, as students
would be. Since microwave RFR and WiFi
exposure levels are higher nearer anantenna source, students sitting in front of
their laptops or iPads at a distance ofapprox. 30-40 cm would have recorded
higher exposures, had they been fitted with18

data throughput to 54 Mbps. In 2009,802.11n increased the total bandwidth to150 Mbps using both 5GHz and 2.4GHz
bands. The 802.11ac revision (2013) iscapable, in theory, of 433 Mbps using wider
80MHz channels in one link using 5GHz.
However, in practice, 802.11ac and802.11n deliver less throughput than thesefigures. WiFi bandwidth is arranged in 4
separate 20MHz channels per antenna thatdeliver bandwidths on individual devices ofbetween to 30-90 Mbps (or more, as
measured by the author in practice) per
20Mhz link.

and receiving. This data traffic varies overtime as does the related power densities.
Hence, the reference to mean and average
exposures in research papers cited. This isbecause data packets from routers/AP and
devices are not transmitted continuously.
Some researchers assume that the worstcase exposure of WLAN to be 100%,
thereby overestimating exposure. This may
be the case above with some examples. The
actual data transfers or duty cycles of a
WLAN/router/device
arethereforeofimportance for time-averaging of exposureswhen assessing the health risks. 102 Some
examples will help explain further.

Theoverall
bandwidth
dependsonindividual
WLAN
routeror
stationcharacteristics such as the number ofantennae. Take, for example, each antenna
can deliver up to 433 Mbps per 80 Mhz,
which is typically split into 4 x 20 MHz
channel links. WLAN routers or accesspoints can have up to 8 antennae delivering
up to 6.77 Gbit/s. In 2019, WiFi 6 or802.11ax is designed to operate in bands
between 1 and 6 GHz, as they become
available. A new revision 802.11ay will
operated in the frequency band around 60
GHz, with a theoretical transmission rate of
20–40 Gbs and a transmission distance of
300–500 meters. Thus, WiFi will shortly
have the same connectivity as 5G cellular
telephony.

The WiFi power density as measured for achild working 50 cm from a typical laptop
was found to be 22,000 μW/m2 (peak) in alaboratory study conducted in the UK. 103
Another study found that “Operating withmaximal duty factors in a classroom with 30
laptops and an access point at a distance of
only 0.5 m could give a maximal personal
exposure of 16,600 μW/m2”. 104 Thus whilethese peak values are problematic foryoung children and sensitive people, thefollowing is important to note:“It is essential to consider the duty cycle—
the period during which the Wi-Fi devices
are sending. A high-effective Wi-Fi network
minimizes the duty cycles, the time thechildren are exposed and the average
exposure value while the students use theInternet, but the background RF radiation
may be higher with high peaks and thismay influence well-being, especially forelectromagnetic hypersensitive persons. …
Activated Wi-Fi in mobile phones usuallyconnects very frequently to the Internet(often every 5–10 s).”All this technical information serves to
confuse both lay people and researchers
who are not electronic or electricalengineers. 101 Put in simple terms, each802.11acaccesspoint/routerorstation/device is like an 8-lane motorway,
split into two 4-lane sections where data
packets (cars) travel in opposite directions.
In the motorway scenario, the amount oftraffic in either direction will vary over time,
as will the degree of air pollution and noise.
It is in the times of heaviest traffic, e.g. inthe morning and evening rush hours that
traffic, air pollution and noise will be at its
maximum. That is when all 4 lanes are busy
going in either direction. However, theeffects are cumulative. And so it is with thepower density (as measured in W/m2 orV/m) when all 4 links in a router/AP or asingle link in each device are transmitting

Nevertheless,arecentconservative
industry-oriented meta-review of studies
revealed that the average exposure to WiFi
in schools was up to approx. 240 μW/m2.105
Note,again,
that
the
EUROPEAM
recommended
daytime
exposuresfornormal adults is 10 μW/m2 and 3–6 μW/m2
in the Bioinitiative Report. Following
EUROPEAM, the precautionary level children
should sensibly be in the range of 1 to 0.1
μW/m2. These levels are between 25 to19

2500 times lower than that observed inmeasured
exposuresinschools.
Furthermore, the actual exposures while
sitting in front of a device such as an iPador when also caring a smartphone, areclearly going to be many times higher,
somewhere between the average and peaklevels reported above. And as Morgan etal.2 find “Children absorb more [microwave
radiation] than adults because their brain
tissues are more absorbent, their skulls arethinner and their relative size is smaller.”Thus, there is great uncertainty about thedegree of exposure to children andadolescents, and scientifically speaking
great risk. The next section places this in apractical context.

Vision issues aside, this light acts tosignificantly attenuate melatonin productionin the brain. The first order effect here isinterference with the circadian rhythm andsleep disturbance. The research literatureon the effect that LED screens have insuppressing melatonin levels is unequivocal.
Cajochen et al. provide convincing evidenceof the effect that “A 5-h evening exposure
to a white LED backlit screen… elicited asignificant suppression of the evening risein endogenous melatonin and subjective as
well as objective sleepiness, as indexed bya reduced incidence of slow eye movements
and EEG low-frequency activity (1–7 Hz) in
frontal brain regions.”107 Sleep disruption is
also problematic as “sleep mediates
learning and memory processing” and isvital for memory “encoding, consolidation,and reconsolidation, into the constellation of
additional processes that are critical for
efficient memory development.”108

Why are the Risks to Children Growing?
The child in the image below is notoperating his tablet device safely—that is,
he is not in compliance with existing
thermal safety standards, insufficient asthey may be. As a consequence, his vitalorgans, central nervous system, eyes andbrain are being exposed to unacceptableand potentially unsafe levels of microwave
radiation, as calculated above. Over time
the cells in his body will develop oxidative
stress, due to elevated levels of ROS andattenuatedlevelsofanti-oxidants
associated with exposure to microwave
radiation. However, the bright light shining
on his face is also affecting his developing
eyes, which are more sensitive to those ofan adult. However, new WiFi technologies
operating at 60Ghz, similar to 5G, bring therisk of ocular damage.106

However, as melatonin is also one of thebody’s most effective antioxidants and ROS
scavengers109, it is putting the young childin the image above at particular risk of
second-ordereffects.
It
specificallyincreases the probability, that at some pointin the future he may develop cancer as anadult. This is dependent on repeated,cumulative exposures to the carcinogen.
One must also consider the remote
probability that he may develop cancers orother health ill-effects or conditions inchildhood.
Cancer aside, scientific experiments havealso demonstrated that exposure to WiFi
radiation also affects brain development inyoung rats and their ability to learn andengage in routine problem solving. 110 , 111 ,
68,69,70,71
The
implications
for
brain
development in children are clear, as are
the consequences for their immediate wellbeing.
In considering the above image, this child is
probably looking at a YouTube video. He
certainly is not reading a school textbook!
Children using iPads for school, with texts
etc. stored in each device, will start using
the device as early as 7 am, in last minutepreparations for school and may finish using

What’s wrong with this picture?
20the device at 8pm, or with older
adolescents, much later. That is over 12-14
hours of exposure, much higher than theestimated average of 7 hours of screen
time 112 . We know that children watch
Youtube or stream content from Netflix etc.
which maximizes their exposure to WiFi
RFR. We now that apps on devices remain
active and as such many devices do not go
into sleep mode and remain on standby if
not fully active. We know that children now
carry their smartphones, with 4G, Bluetoothand 2.4G and 5G WiFi enabled, on theirperson. Thus, it seems logical to assume
that their exposure to non-thermal effects ishigher than it’s ever been. It is also logicalto conclude that we are be witnessing ahealth crisis in the making, particularly with
5G now in place.

Lloyd’s 2010 report predated the IARC’sdecision in 2011 to classify RFR as a Class
2B carcinogen. As research on the healthrisks of RFR produces more empiricalevidence, insurance companies will act
accordingly. Indeed, occupational insurance
for medical practitioners now specifically
excludes any medical conditions that arise
from exposure to non-ionizing radiationsuch as RFR, including that from phones
and mobile devices. Indeed, following thisone would expect a strong response fromthe insurance industry as its actuaries
evaluate the risks posed by long-term
exposure to RFR in the weight of recent
scientific evidence. Thus, in 2019, Swiss Re
places 5G as an emerging high risk, with apossibleincreaseinrelatedliability
claims 114 . Thus most, if not all, insurancecompanies will not underwrite coverage forhealth damages related to RFR exposure
from all sources.

What do Insurance Companies,
Regulators, Telecoms Operators and
Lawyers have to say about the Risks?

Regulators, such as the Securities andExchange Commission, also recognize theeconomic impact of risks, as do mobile
phone and internet services providers.
Take, for example, that Vodafone andVerizon, among others, now include, andmake provision for in their financial reports,
the risks of litigation in relation to thehealth effects of products and services
involving RFR, whether from smartphones
or WiFi routers. Clearly neither believes thatthe small print in the safety information
issued with RFR devices is sufficient. Take,for example, the following excerpt from
Vodafone Group PLC, Annual Report.

In 2010 Lloyds of London published a paperon the emerging risks of RFR. 113 At thetime it likened links between non-ionizing
radiation and cancer to that which exists
between asbestos and cancer, indicatingthat time and more research would
establish a causal link. In 2015, rumours
spread across the web that Lloyds of
London had stopped covering health risks
associated with RFR devices. However, itappears that the exclusion of RFR frominsurance policies was issued by anindividual underwriter, CFC Underwriting Ltd
to the effect that: “The Electromagnetic
Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General
Insurance Exclusion and is applied acrossthe market as standard. The purpose of the
exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses
caused by continuous long-term nonionising radiation exposure, i.e. throughmobile phone usage.” It was reported that
this exclusion applied to insurance cover forarchitects and engineers in Canada,following health concerns centering on a
programme to install Wi-Fi in all British
Columbianschools
without
parents’consent.

“7. Our business may be impacted byactual or perceived health risks
associated with the transmission ofradio waves from mobile telephones,
transmittersandassociatedequipment. Risk: Concerns have been
expressed that the electromagnetic signals
emitted by mobile telephone handsets andbase stations may pose health risks. We
are not aware that such health risks havebeen substantiated, however, in the eventof a major scientific finding supporting thisview this might result in prohibitive
legislation
being
introducedbygovernments (or the European Union), a
21

major reduction in mobile phone usage(especially by children), a requirement tomove base station sites, significant
difficulty renewing or acquiring site leases,
and/or major litigation. An inadequate
response to electromagnetic fields (‘EMF’)
issues may result in loss of confidence in
the industry and Vodafone.”115

exposure and low-intensity effects” and are“insufficient to protect public health.” Theynote the urgency in this, as children are
more vulnerable to the effects of RFR.
Microwave radiation is considered bymajority of independent scientists as aninvisible source of potentially toxic pollutionthat scientific research across the sciences
has identified as being harmful to biologicalsystems and, ultimately, human health andwell-being. Think of a smoke-filled bar ofyore, where smokers and non-smokers alikeare subjected to toxic carcinogens. Now,
think of that same bar in countries wheresmoking is banned from such premises.
However, have we replaced one hazard withanother, if one considers the RFR being
emitted by the WiFi routers/access points,
and radio units all of the smart devices inpubs, cafes, restaurants, homes, schools,
and the workplace. In the age of theInternet of Things (IoT), the scale of thedilemma that we have unthinkingly drifted
into becomes clear. That, is of course, if
one accepts the scientific evidence.

The advent of 5G technologies has brought
the legal profession into the arena. In acomprehensive legal opinion by Danish
lawyer Christian F. Jensen, he concludes:“It is the conclusion of this legal opinion
that establishing and activating a 5Gnetwork, as it is currently described, would
be in contravention of current human andenvironmental laws enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, theUN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonnconventions.
The reason is the very significant body ofscientific documentation available, showingthatradiofrequency
electromagnetic
radiation is harmful and dangerous to thehealth of humans (particularly children),animals and plants.”

All this is of concern to computer scientists
and technologists, who find the exposure toa multiplicity of, and close proximity to,
WiFi and other RFR signals problematic.
Take, for example, Ajay Malik, SVP of
Engineering and Products, Network World,
who has also called for the WiFi standard to
be reviewed by the FCC. He argues that the“amount of radiation exposure today is over
100 times higher as we live in proximity toa very large number of actively transmitting
Wi-Fi
Devicesand
Wi-Fi
AccessPoints/Routers.” 118 He therefore raises
questions on the cumulative impact on
adults and children of these unplanned forlevels of exposure that often can go beyond
SAR safety limits. Of course, he is unawareof the non-thermal health effects which are,perhaps, of greater concern, as the relevantmechanisms operate at lower exposurelevels and shorter durations.

Also, Australian barrister Ray Broomhall issetting legal precedence in Australia inchallenging 5G roll-out and protecting
electrosensitive
peoplefromwirelessradiation.116

Conclusions
In a submission to the United Nations in
2015, over 200 scientists requested that it
address “the emerging public health crisis”
related to the use of RFR emitting
devices. 117 They urged the United Nations
Environmental
Programme(UNEP)
toreview current exposure standards and to
identify measures to substantially lower
human exposures to microwave radiation.
The
scientists
arguedthatexisting“guidelines
do
not
cover
long-term

22

Figure 3 RFR Mechanisms and Outcomes

As far back as 1973, a review and study by
Russian scientists on the effects of lowintensity RFR on experimental animals
indicated clear evidence of effects on thebrain and nervous system, and also theheart and testes, of subjects.119 Historically,
Russia has more stringent safety standards
than the West, whether it is the EU or US,
when it comes to RFR.91 This was first
identified by naval researchers in theirreview of Soviet and Eastern-Bloc studies,
initially at a symposium in 1969.5 By 1976,
the US Naval Medical Research Institute(NMRI) had published a bibliography of
3,700 scientific papers on the thermal andnon-thermal biological effects of RFR, when
the last of a series of supplements to theoriginal report in 1972 were integrated (seeGlaser, Brown and Brown, 1976 7). In
summary, the NMRI identified the following
findings:••

Non-thermal
effects
identified
include oxidative process change (aprecursor for DNA strand breaks andultimately
cancer),decreased
fertility, altered fetal development,
muscle contraction, cardiovascularchanges, altered menstrual activity,
liver
enlargement,changesin120
conditioned reflexes, and so on.

The evidence provided by Russian scientists
and their contemporaries in the US andEurope should have given pause to thetelecommunications industry and regulators
in relation to the commericalisation andwidespread use of mobile telephony in the
1980s. However, in 2019 the cumulative
body of scientific evidence should havegovernments
andregulatorstake
immediate action to change policy andimplement appropriate safety standards for
digital technologies, as it is children that are
most at risk.

Thermal effects identified include
heating of the whole body, brain,eyes, testicles, and sinuses, among
others.

Concern has increased about such risks as
in March 2019, based on recent laboratory23and epidemiological evidence, an Advisory
Group of 29 scientists from 18 countries
recommended that non-ionizing RFR beprioritized by the WHO’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Monographs programme during 2020–24.
They are concerned about the health risks
identified by research over the past 8 years.
So are the majority of independent
researchers as they have called for nonionizing
microwave
radiationtobereclassified as a Class 1 carcinogen, alongwith cigarette smoke. 121 Furthermore,
over 250 scientists and professionals inbiophysics, medicine, health, and related
fields have requested the United Nations
to introduce a moratorium on 5G, given therelated health risks for humans and threat
to the environment.122

paper’s findings and provides compelling
reasons for why such action is necessary.
As indicated, Figure 2 summarises theevidence of risk and indicates the role ofspecific mechanisms in producing thevarious threats to human health and wellbeing. Each of the outcomes identified are
independent of each other; hence, the riskof some form of ill-health to children due to
RFR exposure is highly probable. If we takecancers,
evidence
presented
above
indicates that the incidence and theprevalence of frontal and temporal lobe
brain tumours has increased with statisticalsignificance.
Childrenareparticularly
vulnerable
and
their
risk
exposure
extremely high.
At the risk of repetition, there is only one
realistic course of action. Children andadolescentsshouldnotbeusing
smartphonesor
WiFi-enabled
tabletdevices, and their expose to RFR sources
should be minimized. This might seem
impractical in the digital world, but in ourreal analogue world, children and teenagers
are no longer permitted legal access tocigarettes, nor is it socially acceptable for
adults to smoke in their presence. Given thecurrent
scientificevidence,thepathophysiological properties of RFR appear
to be no different than cigarette smoke orsimilar carcinogens.

Some governments recognize the risk andare taking action. Take, for example, thatthe state of Oregon passed SB 283 in June
2019. This is a “bill relating to exposure toradiation in schools in this state; anddeclaring an emergency.” The radiation
here is WiFi microwave radiofrequency
radiation, which, as indicated was declareda Class 2B carcinogen by the World HealthOrganisation’s IARC in 2011. The weight ofscientific evidence prompted Oregon’s
politicians to vote 50-8 for the measure.
Inter alia, the Bill obliges “the Oregon
Department of Education to develop
recommendations to schools in this state forpractices and alternative technologies that
reduce students’ exposure to microwave
radiation that Oregon Health Authority
report identifies as harmful.”Thus, in light of the evidence, theprecautionary principle should be appliedand governments should implement policies
that result in the removal of WiFi routers
and all WiFi devices from the classrooms ofelementary/primary and secondary/highschools. Just to remind the reader what the
precautionary principle means: "When an
activity raises threats of harm to humanhealth or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if somecause and effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically.” 123 We are wellbeyond that point, as this paper illustrates.
The application of the precautionary
principle is a statutory requirement in someareas of law in the European Union, as
expressed in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights. Thus EU governments at least have

Given the clear risks that RFR-based
technologies present, it is also vital forparents and educators to take immediate
action on the use of microwave emitting
devices where children are concerned. As
there is overwhelming evidence that safety
standards are woefully outdated, the action
to be taken is clear. The precautionary
principle should be applied and the use of
all microwave RFR-enabled devices, from
WiFi-enabled tablets (and smartphones) to
WiFi routers, should be heavily curtailed oreliminated. Figure 2 summarizes this24

a political and an ethical responsibility toact.

and purposes the same as giving
them a cigarette to smoke.

In the absence of appropriate government
policy, educators need to reconsider theuntrammeled use of WiFi in schools and not
employ iPads or tablets for use by children
in class. Devices that use e-Ink, or similartypes of electronic paper display, as
opposed to LED screens, should be used in
the classroom and at home to access ebooks/texts, but these should be operated
in airplane mode when reading.
Parents and guardians also need to act andshouldconsiderthefollowingrecommendations in order to exercise theirpersonal duty of care:

Educate children and adolescents
about the health risks of RFR.



Restrict device time to a maximum
30 minutes for all RFR-enabled
devices, not just screen time.

In respect of screen time, all LED
screen devices should have a Blue
Light Filter. Apps like F-Lux are ideal
here. This minimises melatonin
reduction in users.



Smart phones have 2/3/4G, WiFi andBluetooth radio units all of which arenormally switched on. These should
be used only when required. In
addition, the small print on Healthand Safety information that comeswith a smartphone typically indicatesthat they should NOT be carried nor
operated less than 2.5 cm from the
body.



Remember that the WiFi Safety
standards for ALL devices is thatthey must be operated 20 cm or 8”
from the body and for no more than
30 minutes.



If children or adolescents haveaccess to smartphones and WiFi
devices, the devices should not be
carried or operated on or near theirperson.
o Wired ear buds & microphonesets should be used for all
calls.

If children are using a screen device
for games, they should be operated
in airplane mode.

Ensure WiFi routers are not in ornear or directly beneath children’s
bedrooms and they should beswitched off at night. No RFR device,including some types of baby
monitors, should in in a child’s
bedroom.

Minimise the use in the home of all
Internet of Things (IoT) devices suchas Smart Meters, Virtual Assistants,
Hive, Chromecast, WiFi dongles, andso on.

There is also a clear onus on scientists andpractitioners in the computing and IT
industry to act and ensure that the safety
standards for all RFR and WiFi devices arereviewed in light of the recent scientificfindings. To do otherwise would beirresponsible and unethical. There will beenormous resistance to change from vested
interests and the political establishment.
This
hasalready
happened,withorchestrated campaigns against naturalscientists conducting independent researchon the health implications of RFR,
particularly in the US.124
An excerpt from a recent article in The
Guardian newspaper summarises the typeof response to be expected from industry
with respect to microwave RFR and inparticular the release of the findings of the
NTP study. “Central to keeping the scientificargument going is making it appear that not
all scientists agree. Towards that end, andGiven the RFR risk, handing a young
child an active RFR device, such as asmartphone or an iPad, to hold in
their car seat/pram, is for all intents

25

again like the tobacco and fossil-fuelindustries, the wireless industry has “wargamed” science, as a Motorola internal
memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gamingscience involves playing offence as well as
defence – funding studies friendly to theindustry while attacking studies that raisequestions; placing industry-friendly experts
on advisory bodies such as the World HealthOrganisation and seeking to discredit
scientists whose views differ from theindustry’s.” 125

replacedbytheplannedeconomicintervention of the state. We must demandthat unrestrained capitalism give way toeconomic interventionism." The economic
freedom and self-regulation accorded totechnology firms should be balanced with
the need to protect the interests, healthand well-being of the citizenry. This wasrecently underlined in another context byProfessor Shoshana Zuboff, who critiques
the activities of BigTech firms and theconsequences for individuals and society.126
Likewise, Professor Sherry Turkle, paints anequally grim picture of the impact of digitaltechnology on our general well-being. 127
However, neither were aware of, noraddress, the fundamental way in which thesame technologies create fundamental risks
for human health and well-being. Equally
unaware and misinformed are politicians
and policy makers, whether in nation states
and wider communities such as the EU.

Returning to the quote at the beginning of
this paper by Professor Frentzel-Beyme MD,
we have, as the evidence adduced hereinindicates, far exceeded the “level of proof
required to justify action for healthprotection.” The theory that non-ionizing
RFR exposure could not cause cancer has
been refuted using the scientific method. It
is ironic, in the era of neoconservatism,
neoliberalism, and the anti-environmental
policies in the U.S., that the smoking gun
should be provided by the National
Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. This study,
as indicated above, is just the latest of
many to provide the “clear evidence”
required for policy and social change.

It
must
be
remembered
that
theintroduction of wireless digital technologies
happened in a piecemeal fashion. There wasno cost-benefit analysis, in terms of theobviousbenefitsofenhancedcommunication and information access andexchange,
versustheunintended
consequencesandrisks.
Drivenby‘technological fundamentalism,’ and thegeneral belief that digital technology isneutral and therefore carries no unintended
consequences or risks, politicians, policy
makers, and society were misled by thetelecommunications industry in the U.S. andEuropeinto
believingthatwireless
technologies are safe.

The need for social change is this area is as
important, and no less controversial, thanthat required to respond to the challenge ofglobal warming. However, the forces
resisting change to the status quo are
equally considerable. Take for example that
“Not one major news organisation in the US
or Europe reported [the] scientific news
[published by the NTP]. But then, news
coverage of mobile phone safety has longreflected the outlook of the wirelessindustry.”53

What should have happened, post-1976,
when the risks were indicated by the U.S.
Naval Medical Research Institute, is thatgovernments should have followed Popper’s
general advice viz. limited the scope oftechnologicalchangeinline
withindependent scientific research on thermal
and non-thermal risks, which predicted theoutcomes for individuals and society.

The Last Word belongs to the Philosophyof Science
This paper’s penultimate word goes topreeminent Philosopher of Science andchampion of the scientific method, Sir Karl
Popper. In the The Open Society, Popper
states, "[i]f we wish freedom to besafeguarded, then we must demand thatthe policy of unlimited economic freedom beProfessor Nassim Taleb extended Popper’s
perspective by identifying the consequencesof ignoring black swan risk. 128 In a
subsequent tome, he correctly argues that26

“[o]ur record of understanding risks incomplex systems (biology, economics,
climate) has been pitiful, marred withretrospective
distortions(weonly
understand the risks after the damage
takes place, yet we keep making themistake), and there is nothing to convince
me that we have gotten better at risk
management.” 129 The truth of the risks
posed by RFR—4G, 5G and WiFi—is there
for all to see. But it’s not easy to access orunderstand the science and its findings.

In order to combat vested interests andprotect children, parents and grandparents,
aunts
and
uncles,needtoinformthemselves, to act and change extant social
perspectives on seemingly harmless digitaltechnologies that entertain and beguile, andwhich offer affordances without apparent
consequences. That will be the challenge forreaders of this paper. To understand thattechnology is not neutral—that it has
negative as well as positive consequences
for users and society, and that there is adark side to the bright screen on which you
may be reading this article.

Popper indicates in his masterwork,
Conjectures and Refutations, that scientifictruth is difficult to achieve, particularly as
people tend to be “good, but stupid” andeasily “led by the nose”.21 His theory
explains why we are in the mess wecurrently
findourselves,
not
only
concerning wireless digital technologies, but
a raft of other environmental risks.

About the Author
Professor Tom Butler is a social scientist at
University College Cork. A former satellite
and microwave communications specialist
and an IT professional, he is more thanfamiliar with the traditional safety issues
relating to microwave RFR. His Pauline
conversion
fromtheengineering
perspective on RFR thermal safety occurred
through research engagements with theChief Risk Officer of a global corporation
who pointed out the significant risks tochildren from the non-thermal effects of
RFR. These discussions and related eventsin his personal life stimulated Professor
Butler’s interest in this important topic.

One of the greatest environmental disastersof recent times was the accident involving
ionizing radiation at Chernobyl. In the HBO
docudrama the following is attributed to thescientist responsible for averting a global
catastrophe, Dr. Valery Legasov:“To be a scientist is to be naive. We are so
focused on our search for truth we fail toconsider how few actually want us to find it.
But it is always there whether we see it ornot, whether we choose to or not. The truth
doesn’t care about our needs or wants—it
doesn’t care about our governments, ourideologies, our religions—it will lie in wait
for all time…Where I once would fear thecost of truth, now I only ask what is thecost of lies.”

In a research context, Tom is a former
Government of Ireland Research Fellow,
Principal
Investigator
(PI)
of
the
Governance
Risk
andComplianceTechnology Centre (2013-2018), PI of the
SmaRT and SamRT4Reg Commercialisation
Fund Projects (2017-2019), and Co-PI of
two Marie Skłodowska-Curie Career-FIT
Fellowships in Artificial Intelligence (20192022). With over €8.5 million in researchfunding on the application of digitaltechnologies to date, he has over 220
publications and 11 inventions. Tom is amember of the European Commission’s
Expert Group on Regulatory Obstacles toFinancial Innovation (ROFIEG) in the area of
FinTech.

I am a scientist, and equally naïve, andequally fallible, as any other human.
However, no matter how difficult, howelusive, how controversial, how personallycostly, my quest for the truth isunswerving. Nevertheless, as Popper holds,
the truth is hard to come by, particularly inthe digital age, as fake news and personal
opinion dominates over scientific fact.

27

References
1

Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effectsof low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental pollution, 242, 643-658.
2
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.
3
Guideline, ICNIRP (1998). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic
fields (up to 300 GHz). Health phys, 74(4), 494-522.
4
Cherry, N. J. (2002). Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency and microwave
radiation (100 kHz-300 GHz). Invited submission to the Ministry of Health/ Ministry for the Environment of New
Zealand on the adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines.
5
Dodge, C. H. (1969, September). Clinical and hygienic aspects of exposure to electromagnetic fields: A review ofSoviet and East European literature. In Biological Effects and health Implications of Microwave Radiation
Symposium Proceedings, SF Cleary, ed., BRH, DBE Report (pp. 70-2).
6
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Naval-MRI-Glaser-Report-1976.pdf
7Glaser, Z. (1972). Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed tomicrowave and radio-frequency radiation. Naval Medical Research Institute – National Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, USA.
8
Attributed to S. J. Green BAT, https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf
9Huss, A., Egger, M., Hug, K., Huwiler-Müntener, K., & Röösli, M. (2006). Source of funding and results of studies ofhealth effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environmental health perspectives,
115(1), 1-4.
10
https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/
11
Goldacre, B. (2014). Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Macmillan.
12
See https://ehtrust.org/policy/phonegate-cell-phone-radiation-exceeds-limits-tested-body-contact-position/
13
https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-2019082172qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html
14
Alster, N. (2015). Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it
presumably regulates. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.
15
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/
16
https://today.law.harvard.edu/at-center-for-ethics-event-cell-phone-radiation-and-institutional-corruption-addressedvideo/
17
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
18
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press.
19
Pockett, S. (2019). Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequencesof Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels. Magnetochemistry, 5(2), 31.
20
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
21
Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
22
David, L. (1980). Study of federal microwave standards (No. DOE/ER/10041-02). PRC Energy Analysis Co.,
McLean, VA (USA).
23
EPA (1984). Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report, September
1984.
24
General Accounting Office (2001) Telecommunications, Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Healthhttps://books.google.ie/books?id=K992xTuMOlwC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=FDA+Consumer+Update+on+Mobile+
Phones+1999&source=bl&ots=Xw2OcOPHcs&sig=ACfU3U0pJFCBYvIWEgh7rxVBi-v-5ytpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihy-GU347lAhX_RBUIHdi7DXoQ6AEwCXoECAcQAQ
25
Carlo, G. L., & Schram, M. (2001). Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: an Insider's Alarming
Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage. Carroll & Graf.
26
Alster, N. (2015). Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it
presumably regulates. Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA.
27
Melnick, R. L. (2019). Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phoneradiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing
the findings of adverse health effects. Environmental research, 168, 1-6.

28

28

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on
toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and inmice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International journal of oncology, 54(1), 111127.
29
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientiﬁc revolutions. Chicago and London.
30
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1999). Nomination Letter to Coordinator of NTP Chemical Nomination and
Selection Committee. nomihttps://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/wireless051999_508.pdf .
31
Vijayalaxmi & Obe, G., (2004). Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cellsexposed toradiofrequency radiation, Radiat. Res. 162 (5), 481–96.
32
National Toxicology Programme (2018a). Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf.
33
National Toxicology Programme (2018b). Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=prod&utm_campai
gn=ntpgolinks&utm_term=cellphone
34
Morgan, L. L., Miller, A. B., Sasco, A., & Davis, D. L. (2015). Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors andshould be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). International journal of oncology, 46(5), 1865-1871.
35
National Toxicology Programme (2018c). High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in
Male Rats, Telephone Press Conference, 10/31/18, 2:00 pm ET. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/newsreleases/high-exposure-radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats.
36
Wyde, M. (2016). NTP toxicology and carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation. BioEM2016
Meeting, Ghent, Belgium. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cellphone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf .
37
https://www.ramazzini.org/comunicato/onde-elettromagnetiche-listituto-ramazzini-risponde-allicnirp/
38
Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., De Angelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi,F., Manzoli, I. & Menghetti, I. (2018). Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley
rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz
GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental research, 165, 496-503.
39
http://ehtrust.org/the-california-medical-association-wireless-resolution/
40
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf
41
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/ cellphone-radiation-cancer.html
42
Mialon, H. M., & Nesson, E. T. (2019). The Association Between Mobile Phones and the Risk of Brain Cancer
Mortality: A 25‐year Cross‐country Analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12456.
43
Coureau, G., Bouvier, G., Lebailly, P., Fabbro-Peray, P., Gruber, A., Leffondre, K., ... & Baldi, I. (2014). Mobile
phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med, oemed-2013.
44
Philips, A.. Henshaw, D., L Lamburn, G. & M. O'Carroll, (2018). Brain tumours: rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme
incidence in England 1995–2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor, Journal of Environmental
and Public Health, vol. 2018, Article ID 7910754.
45
Ostrom, Q. T., Gittleman, H., Xu, J., Kromer, C., Wolinsky, Y., Kruchko, C., & Barnholtz-Sloan, J. S. (2016).
CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in
2009–2013. Neuro-oncology, 18(suppl_5), v1-v75.
46
Khanna, V., Achey, R. L., Ostrom, Q. T., Block-Beach, H., Kruchko, C., Barnholtz-Sloan, J. S., & de Blank, P. M.
(2017). Incidence and survival trends for medulloblastomas in the United States from 2001 to 2013. Journal ofneuro-oncology, 135(3), 433-441.
47
Withrow, D. R., de Gonzalez, A. B., Lam, C. J., Warren, K. E., & Shiels, M. S. (2018). Trends in pediatric central
nervous system tumor incidence in the United States, 1998-2013. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers,cebp-0784.
48
Röösli, M., Lagorio, S., Schoemaker, M. J., Schüz, J., & Feychting, M. (2019). Brain and Salivary Gland Tumors andMobile Phone Use: Evaluating the Evidence from Various Epidemiological Study Designs. Annual review of publichealth, 40.
49
West, J. G., Kapoor, N. S., Liao, S. Y., Chen, J. W., Bailey, L., & Nagourney, R. A. (2013). Multifocal breast cancer
in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. Case reports in medicine,2013.
50
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015a). Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish national inpatient register andthe causes of death register. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(4), 3793-3813.
29

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015b). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma–Analysis ofpooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology, 22(1), 1-13.
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2017). Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age
groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PloS
one, 12(10), e0185461
51
Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation (2017). Brain tumors are increasing in Denmark
https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/denmark_cnstumorsrising_2017-01-20.pdf
52
Patel, A. P., Fisher, J. L., Nichols, E., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., ... & Allen, C. A. (2019). Global,
regional, and national burden of brain and other CNS cancer, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology, 18(4), 376-393.
53
Siegel, D. Li, S J., Henley, J., Wilson, R., Buchanan Lunsford, N., Tai, E. Van Dyne, E. (2018) Incidence rates andtrends of pediatric cancer — United States, 2001–2014, American Society of Pediatric Hematology Oncology
Conference, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
http://aspho.org/uploads/meetings/2018annualmeeting/Abstracts_for_Website.pdf
54
Ostrom, Q. T., Gittleman, H., Truitt, G., Boscia, A., Kruchko, C., & Barnholtz-Sloan, J. S. (2018). CBTRUS statisticalreport: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neurooncology, 20(suppl_4), iv1-iv86.
55
Virostko, J., Capasso, A., Yankeelov, T. E., & Goodgame, B. (2019). Recent trends in the age at diagnosis ofcolorectal cancer in the US National Cancer Data Base, 2004‐2015. Cancer.
56
Araghi, M., Soerjomataram, I., Bardot, A., Ferlay, J., Cabasag, C. J., Morrison, D. S., ... & Engholm, G. (2019).
Changes in colorectal cancer incidence in seven high-income countries: a population-based study. The Lancet
Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 4(7), 511-518.
57
Vuik, F. E., Nieuwenburg, S. A., Bardou, M., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Bento, M. J., ... & Suchanek,
S. (2019). Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults in Europe over the last 25 years. Gut, gutjnl2018.
58
Chauhan, P., Verma, H. N., Sisodia, R., & Kesari, K. K. (2017). Microwave radiation (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative
stress: Whole-body exposure effect on histopathology of Wistar rats. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(1),20-30.
59
Carpenter, D. O., & Bushkin-Bedient, S. (2013). Exposure to chemicals and radiation during childhood and risk forcancer later in life. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(5), S21-S29.
60
Christ, Andreas, Marie-Christine Gosselin, Maria Christopoulou, Sven Kühn, & Niels Kuster. (2010). Age-dependent
tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Physics in medicine and biology, 55(7): 1767.
61
Keshvari, J., Keshvari, R., & Lang, S. (2006). The effect of increase in dielectric values on specific absorption rate(SAR) in eye and head tissues following 900, 1800 and 2450 MHz radio frequency (RF) exposure. Physics in
Medicine and Biology, 51(6), 1463.
62
Gandhi, O. P., Morgan, L. L., de Salles, A. A., Han, Y. Y., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L. (2012). Exposure limits:
the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine,
31(1), 34-51
63
Zhou, L. Y., Zhang, H. X., Lan, Y. L., Li, Y., Liang, Y., Yu, L., ... & Wang, S. Y. (2017). Epidemiologicalinvestigation of risk factors of the pregnant women with early spontaneous abortion in Beijing. Chinese journal of
integrative medicine, 23(5), 345-349.
64
Mahmoudabadi, F. S., Ziaei, S., Firoozabadi, M., & Kazemnejad, A. (2015). Use of mobile phone during pregnancy
and the risk of spontaneous abortion. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 13(1), 34.
65
Li, D. K., Chen, H. & Odouli, R. (2011). Maternal Exposure to Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy in Relation to the
Risk of Asthma in Offspring. Arch.Pediatr.Adolesc.Med.
66
Li, D. K., Ferber, J. R., Odouli, R. & Quesenberry, C. P. Jr. (2012). A prospective study of in-utero exposure tomagnetic felds and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci.Rep. 2, 540.
67
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, 312.
68
Othman, H., Ammari, M., Rtibi, K., Bensaid, N., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H. (2017). Postnatal development andbehavior effects of in-utero exposure of rats to radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional WiFi devices.
Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 52:239-247. doi: 0.1016/j.etap.2017.04.016.
69
Kumari K, Koivisto H, Myles C, Jonne N, Matti V, Heikki T, Jukka J. (2017). Behavioural phenotypes in mice after
prenatal and early postnatal exposure to intermediate frequency magnetic fields. Environ Res 162: 27-34
30

70

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.
71
Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. (2008). Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral
problems in children. Epidemiology 19:523-529. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47.
72
Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. (2012). Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. J
Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):524-9. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.115402.
73
Frentzel-Beyme, R. (1994). John R. Goldsmith on the usefulness of epidemiological data to identify links between
point sources of radiation and disease. Public health reviews, 22(3-4), 305-320.
74
Waris G, Ahsan H. (2016). Reactive oxygen species: role in the development of cancer and various chronic
conditions. Journal of Carcinogenesis. 2006;5(14). doi:10.1186/1477-3163-5-14.
75
De Iuliis, G. N., Newey, R. J., King, B. V., & Aitken, R. J. (2009). Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen
species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PloS one, 4(7), e6446.
76
Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanismsof biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic biology and medicine, 35(2), 186202.
77
Nazıroğlu, M., Yüksel, M., Köse, S. A., & Özkaya, M. O. (2013). Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced
radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females and males. The Journal of membrane
biology, 246(12), 869-875.
78
Pall, M. L. (2018). Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research, 164, 405-416.
79
Pall, M.L., (2013). Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or
adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. (17), 958–965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.12088.
80
Kesari, K. K., Siddiqui, M. H., Meena, R., Verma, H. N., & Kumar, S. (2013). Cell phone radiation exposure on brain
and associated biological systems. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, March 2013; 51: 187–200.
81
Han, Y. Y., Gandhi, O. P., De Salles, A., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L. (2010). Comparative assessment ofmodels of electromagnetic absorption of the head for children and adults indicates the need for policy changes. Eur
J Oncol. Volume, 5, 301-318.
82
Kheifets, L., Repacholi, M., Saunders, R., & Van Deventer, E. (2005). The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic
fields. Pediatrics, 116(2), e303-e313.
83
Akhavan-Sigari, R., Baf, M. M. F., Ariabod, V., Rohde, V., & Rahighi, S. (2014). Connection between cell phone use,
p53 gene expression in different zones of glioblastoma multiforme and survival prognoses. Rare Tumors, 6(3).
84Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015a). Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish national inpatient register andthe causes of death register. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(4), 3793-3813.
85
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015b). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma–Analysis of pooled
case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology, 22(1), 1-13.
86
Carlberg, M., Hedendahl, L., Ahonen, M., Koppel, T., & Hardell, L. (2016). Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in
the Nordic countries with main focus on Swedish data. BMC cancer, 16(1), 426.
87
Portier, C.J., & Leonard W.L. (2016). Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Probably, but It's Complicated, Scientific
American, June 13, 2016.
88
Tillmann, T., Ernst, H., Streckert, J., Zhou, Y., Taugner, F., Hansen, V., Dasenbrock, C., (2010). Indication of
cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mousemodel. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 86, 529–541.
89
Lerchl, A., Klose, M., Grote, K., Wilhelm, A. F., Spathmann, O., Fiedler, T., ... & Clemens, M. (2015). Tumor
promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemicaland biophysical research communications, 459(4), 585-590.
90
Swankin and Turner (2016). See at https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Swankin-Turner-Letter-to-FCC-wsignature.pdf
91
Phonegate. https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiation-scandal-french-government-data-indicates-cell-phonesexposeconsumers-radiation-levels-higher-manufacturers-claim/
92
Grigoriev Y. (2017). Methodology of Standards Development for EMF RF in Russia and by International
Commissions: Distinctions in Approaches. In Markov, M (Ed.), Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics. Chapter 15. pp.
315-337. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

31

93

Hankin, N. (2002). Letter from Norbert Hankin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Janet Newton President,
The EMR Network (July 16, 2002), available at http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf .Accessed 21-03-2017.
94
FCC (1999). Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
95https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-samsung-phones-fcc-investigation-excess-radiation-report-20198?r=US&IR=T
96
Belyaev, I., Dean, A., Eger, H., Hubmann, G., Jandrisovits, R., Kern, M., ... & Oberfeld, G. (2016). EUROPAEMEMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.
Reviews on environmental health, 31(3), 363-397.
97
BioInitiative Working Group, Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for BiologicallyBased Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation (2012). Available from:http://www.bioinitiative.org
98
Curry, B. (2000) Wireless LANs in the Classroom. A report to Dr. Gary Brown, Distance Learning, Senior Technical
Specialist, Florida.
99
URS (2012). RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) EVALUATION REPORT: Use of Wireless Devices in Educational
Settings. Report to the Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of Environmental Health and Safety.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/bd9036dad3575d0f8b21d68a33f752fb?AccessKeyId=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposit
ion=0&alloworigin=1100
http://www.lausd-oehs.org/docs/Misc/Radiofrequency_Safety_Fact_Sheet_021113a.pdf
101
Mortazavi, S. J. (2018). Comments on “Wi‐Fi radiation exposures to children in kindergartens and schools–results
should lessen parental concerns”. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 42(1), 112-112.
102
Joseph, W., Pareit, D., Vermeeren, G., Naudts, D., Verloock, L., Martens, L., & Moerman, I. (2013). Determinationof the duty cycle of WLAN for realistic radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure assessment. Progress inBiophysics and Molecular Biology, 111(1), 30-36.
103
Peyman A, Khalid M, Calderon C, Addison D, Mee T, Maslanyj M, et al. (2011). Assessment of exposure toelectromagnetic fields from wireless computer networks (Wi-Fi) in schools; results of laboratory measurements.
Health Phys 100:594–612. doi:10.1097/HP.0b013e318200e203
104
Khalid M, Mee T, Peyman A, Addison D, Calderon C, Maslanyj M, et al. Exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields from wireless computer networks: duty factors of Wi-Fi devices operating in schools. Prog
Biophys Mol Biol (2011) 107:412–20. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.08.004.
105
Chiaramello, E., Bonato, M., Fiocchi, S., Tognola, G., Parazzini, M., Ravazzani, P., & Wiart, J. (2019). Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Assessment in Indoor Environments: A Review. International journalof environmental research and public health, 16(6), 955.
106
Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?. International journal of
hygiene and environmental health, 221(3), 367-375.
107
Cajochen, C., Frey, S., Anders, D., Späti, J., Bues, M., Pross, A., Mager, R., WirzJustice, A., & Stefani, O., (2011).
Evening exposure to a light-emitting diodes (LED)- backlit computer screen affects circadian physiology andcognitive performance. Journal of Applied Physiology 110, 1432e1438.
108
Walker, M. P., and Stickgold, R. (2004). Sleep-dependent learning and memory consolidation. Neuron 44, 121–133.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.031
109
Lobo, V., Patil, A., Phatak, A., & Chandra, N. (2010). Free radicals, antioxidants and functional foods: Impact onhuman health. Pharmacognosy reviews, 4(8), 118.
110
Ikinci, A., Odaci, E., Yildirim, M., Kaya, H., Akça, M., Hanci, H., ... & Bas, O. (2013). The effects of prenatal
exposure to a 900 megahertz electromagnetic field on hippocampus morphology and learning behavior in rat pups.
NeuroQuantology, 11(4), 582-590.
111
Narayanan, S. N., Kumar, R. S., Karun, K. M., Nayak, S. B., & Bhat, P. G. (2015). Possible cause for altered spatial
cognition of prepubescent rats exposed to chronic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Metabolic brain
disease, 30(5), 1193-1206.
112
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parents-need-to-drastically-cut-kids-screen-time-devices-american-heart-association/
113

https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging%20risk%20reports/emf%20final%20november%202010.
pdf
32

114

https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:5916802c-cf6b-4c67-9d42-39cf80c4b00d/sonar-publication-2019.pdf
Vodafone Group PLC, Annual Report 2012. https://www.vodafone.com/content/annualreport/annual_report12/downloads/performance_vodafone_ar2012_sections/principal_risk_factors_and_unc
ertainties_vodafone_ar2012.pdf.
116
https://ecsfr.com.au/barrister-raymond-broomhall/
https://ecsfr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Raymond_Broomhall_Article_Website.pdf
115

117 https://emfscientist.org/

118

http://www.networkworld.com/article/3004112/ wi-fi/why-the-fccs-safety-guidelines-for-wi-fi-need-to-be-reevaluated.html
119
Tolgskaya, M.S. & Gordon, Z.V., (1973). Pathological Effects of Radio Waves, Translated from Russian by B
Haigh. Consultants Bureau, New York/London 1-146.
120
Glaser, Z., Brown, P.F., and Brown M.S. (1976). Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) andclinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: Compilation and Integration ofReport and Seven Supplements. Naval Medical Research Institute – National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
USA. (see https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Naval-MRI-Glaser-Report-1976.pdf)
121
Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011
IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental research, 167, 673683.: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118303475
122
http://www.5gappeal.eu/signatories-to-scientists-5g-appeal/
123
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
124
Seattle Magazine 2011: https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry.
An article on Professor Henry Lai.
125
Hertsgaard, M & Dowie, M. (2018). The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones. The Guardian, Sat 14
Jul 2018 15.00 BST. https://www.theguardian.com/ technolo.gy/ 2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenienttruths. Accessed Sunday 17th February, 2019.
126
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of
Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.
127
Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette UK.
128
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin.
129
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: how to live in a world we don't understand (Vol. 3). London: Allen Lane.

33