Current Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm, New Study Finds

Researchers conclude that current wireless radiation exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to safely protect people.

PRESS RELEASE

Berkeley, CA — March 14, 2026 — A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Health reveals that current safety limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, and cell towers—are severely inadequate to protect public health. Taking results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that current RFR exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect us from cancer risk with 8 hours per day of exposure. Also, based on other research, RFR limits were 24 times too high to protect against reproductive impacts.

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have maintained RFR exposure limits based on behavioral studies with less than one hour of exposure, conducted on small groups of animals in the 1980s. Those limits were designed solely to prevent tissue heating during short-term exposure, ignoring non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure.

The new study, co-authored by Drs. Ronald L. Melnick and Joel M. Moskowitz, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), conducted risk assessments on cancer and reproduction because recent systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization concluded with “high certainty” that RFR exposure caused cancer and adverse reproductive impacts in animal models. 

Key Findings

• Cancer Risk: Current FCC and ICNIRP public exposure limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to maintain an acceptable environmental cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.
• Reproductive Toxicity: Limits need to be reduced by 8 to 24 times to address risks related to male reproductive outcomes, such as decreased sperm count, vitality, and testosterone levels.
• Workers Are at Risk: Occupational exposure limits for RFR are currently set five times higher than those for the public, putting workers at an even greater unmitigated risk for these adverse health effects.

Watch a video of Dr. Melnick presenting the key findings here. 

“Current regulatory limits for RFR are based on outdated assumptions that have been thoroughly invalidated by the last thirty years of scientific research,” says Dr. Melnick, a retired toxicologist from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who led the design of NTP’s cell phone radiation study. Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the current limits for cell phones and wireless networks are structurally incapable of protecting human health. We urgently need governments to step up, abandon these obsolete guidelines, and conduct rigorous risk assessments using modern toxicological data. The science is there; now we need the policy to catch up so we can protect public and occupational health.”

“We are constantly surrounded by devices emitting wireless radiation; yet government regulations do not account for the chronic, low-level exposures they create,” adds Dr. Moskowitz from the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. “The exposure levels calculated in this paper should not be interpreted as ‘safe limits;’ rather they represent risk-based estimates derived from the data reviewed in the WHO systematic reviews using standard EPA risk-assessment methods, indicating that current regulatory limits should, at a minimum, be reduced to levels in this range to better align with modern scientific evidence.”

The authors strongly recommend an immediate, independent re-evaluation of wireless radiation exposure limits. They urge regulatory bodies to lower RFR exposure limits by applying the rigorous, health-protective methodologies commonly used for toxic and carcinogenic environmental agents, as discussed in this paper.

About the Study

An unedited version of this paper, “Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals,” can be downloaded from the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health:: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6.

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and cell towers emit radiofrequency radiation. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment.ICBE-EMF.org

Smartphone, Earphone and Bluetooth headsets all emit static magnetic fields as well as RF radiation. A new study found that magnetic fields emitted by smartphones and earphones increased the accumulation of air pollution–derived magnetite nanoparticles in the brain and triggered neurotoxic effects in mice

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.5c22066

Read more here https://www.ehn.org/bluetooth-earbud-air-pollution-health-effects

A recent systematic review published in Marine Environmental Research by Elizabeth James et al. examined 35 years of peer-reviewed studies on underwater electromagnetic (EMF) radiation exposure and found that 66% reported significant impacts on aquatic life.

Impacts were found in a wide range of species across the full spectrum of EMF levels tested.

Researchers observed both behavioral changes (such as changes to swimming speed and habitat use) and physiological changes (including altered immune responses, metabolic regulation, and cardiovascular development).

Impacts tied to EMF exposure were most significant during the early stages of development (embryos, larvae, and juveniles), with significant changes reported in 93% of young fish and 100% of young crustaceans.

Read full review:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141113626000851?via%3Dihub

Also:

A review of potential impacts of submarine power cables on the marine environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and future directions – Taormina et al (2018) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032118305355

See also https://www.ehn.org/fish-emf-health-risks

Irish Examiner 2nd December 2025 – by Cianan Brennan

Tue, 02 Dec, 2025 – 01:00

Cianan Brennan

On Monday, a near five-year legal odyssey came to an end at the High Court with Kilkenny couple Peter and Doreen Thomson being vindicated in full in their battle over a decision to allow a mobile phone mast to be installed next to their home.

In sticking to their guns, the couple did the State and their fellow citizens an enormous service — one which will likely not be fully appreciated by the public at large.

They have also shown that, in the Government’s current attempts to stifle access to review of questionable decisions made by State actors, we are heading down a very poorly-lit path.

The Thomsons had argued that the initial decision taken by former deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála Paul Hyde — who subsequently received a criminal conviction for undeclared conflicts of interest during his time at the planning authority — had been the subject of bias, given the alleged statistical improbability of the sheer number of times he had overruled his own planning inspectors when granting permission for telecommunications masts.

Those allegations were never tested in court. Instead, An Coimisiún Pleanála — a name change that resulted directly from the scandals which engulfed it in its previous guise — argued that the Thomsons had taken their challenge outside the eight-week statute of limitations for raising an objection, an argument the High Court initially agreed with.

However,  given the seriousness of what they were alleging relating to transparency of public decisions, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court both said the public interest would be better served by having the Thomsons case argued in court 

While the Coimisiún said repeatedly in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that it would robustly defend its position, this has not come to pass. Instead, it has dropped its defence entirely.

Accusations of bias

In a statement delivered by its legal counsel, Philip Lee, the Coimisiún insisted accusations of bias are unfounded. However, at the same time, it has elected not to defend them.

“The concession of the proceedings means that we will not get to hear any explanation for what was an extraordinary pattern of decision-making by the board in relation to telecoms masts,” Eoin Brady, the Thomsons solicitor, said.

Mr Brady, who has taken countless cases relating to dubious mast decisions, called for a 2023-commissioned report by senior counsel on governance issues at the then An Bord Pleanála to be published.

“It is truly amazing that the relevant authorities are still refusing public access to a report completed at considerable expense to the taxpayer in relation to allegations of systemic wrongdoing at one of the State’s most important institutions,” he said.

But back to the Thomsons. There is tremendous vindication for them here, and doubtless enormous relief also for them personally. The bravery of what they did should not be underestimated. They admitted in the High Court initially that they had not brought the case at first for fear of the enormous financial implications should they lose.

The Thomsons had argued that the initial decision taken by former deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála Paul Hyde had been the subject of bias. File Picture: Dan Linehan

Peter Thomson eventually decided to pursue the case anyway after reporting by the Irish Examiner disclosed Mr Hyde’s granting permission for mobile phone masts, regardless of whether his own inspectors believed the construction to be appropriate or not.

It has taken enormous courage and fortitude to do what the Thomsons have done. The case is not a sexy one, but they have brought the State to heel and exposed a deeply dubious decision for what it was.

The whole saga is a shining example of what a judicial review process can do when approached in good faith and with a genuine case. A public good has been achieved. Will Ireland learn from this lesson? It seems not.

Judicial review

At present, the Department of Housing is fast-tracking legislation to make access to judicial review much more difficult. In future, if you wish to challenge a questionable planning decision which affects you directly, you’ll have to be prepared to pay through the nose for it to the tune of well over €100,000. 

No longer will the State be covering the costs in full of successful objectors, all in the name of “getting things done”.

Those changes have resulted from the Government’s mismanagement of the country’s housing crisis, and the optics of needing to be seen to be doing something about it.

Similar deregulatory thinking led to doozies like the 110% mortgage, along with Ireland’s banks being actively encouraged to throw credit around like confetti in the buildup to a financial crash that brought Ireland to its knees in 2008. Must we always be doomed to repeat our mistakes? Or will sanity ever prevail?

Eoin Brady says: “The Thomson case clearly illustrates the critical importance of the availability of judicial review. It shows the importance of preserving access to the courts for ordinary people when faced with decision-making by State institutions which break the law.

“Ultimately judicial review is about preserving the rule of law, and ensuring accountability within our institutions, which is key to ensuring cohesion in society. In today’s world, that could not be more important.”

He is not wrong.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE : https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

& https://web.archive.org/web/20251202025348/https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

Radio Interview with Peter and Doreen Thomson: https://kclr96fm.com/a-huge-relief-say-kilkenny-couple-as-more-than-four-year-battle-in-high-court-over-plans-for-mobile-phone-mast-comes-to-an-end/

Irish Examiner 1st December 2025 – Cianan Brennan

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41752548.html

Mon, 01 Dec, 2025 – 20:00

Cianan Brennan

Planning body An Coimisiún Pleanála has dropped its defence of a legal case taken against the granting of permission to build a telecommunications mast in Co Kilkenny after a four-year battle.

The planning authority told Peter Thomson, the Kilkenny man who took the case against the initial June 2021 decision, it would no longer be opposing the quashing of the original decision made by its former deputy chair Paul Hyde for several reasons — but denied it now accepted that bias in its decision-making had been a factor.

Peter Thomson and his wife Doreen had initially objected to the construction of the telecommunications mast adjacent to their home in Kells, alleging the decision to grant permission had been affected by “bias”.

That objection was initially dismissed by the High Court as being made outside the time limit of eight weeks for taking a legal action, only for that decision to be overturned by the Court of Appeal.

An Bord Pleanála, as the commission was formerly known, then appealed the decision to allow the Thomsons’ judicial review to the Supreme Court, only to lose that appeal in a landmark decision last July.

The commission had insisted throughout the various legal hearings over Mr Hyde’s decision that it would be robustly defending the case even it were to lose the Supreme Court appeal — however, no defence will now be mounted.

In a letter from its solicitors Philip Lee, the commission told Mr Thomson that in the aftermath of the adverse Supreme Court ruling it had “considered its position” with regard to a number of factors, including the four-year time gap since the case was first taken, changes in personnel at the body, and “certain conclusions” of an unpublished report into goings-on at the Commission compiled by senior counsel Lorna Lynch.

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question. Picture: Dan Linehan

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question. Picture: Dan Linehan

“In preparing opposition papers in these remitted proceedings and on further consideration of the matter, the commission has determined that it will no longer oppose an order of Certiorari (rendering the initial decision invalid) of its decision dated 17 June, 2021,” the commission said.

However, it added it “continues to be the position” of the commission that the statistical evidence put forward by the Thomsons regarding Mr Hyde’s decision-making “did not demonstrate bias — objective or subjective”.

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over, originally reported by the Irish Examiner, had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question.

The commission said Ms Lynch’s assertion in a press statement concerning her unpublished report — that “a change in policy emphasis” encouraging mobile mast infrastructure had been seen at An Bord Pleanála — could now be confirmed as relating to two Government circulars dating from 2018 which underlined that mobile infrastructure was to be encouraged by local authorities.

While insisting Mr Hyde’s decision did not constitute bias, the commission admitted “there was error of law” in that the board members had “misinterpreted the circulars” in question.

The case was briefly heard at the High Court on Monday, where the commission’s decision to drop the case was revealed. 

However, Eir — the original applicants for the mast itself — asked that the application be remitted to the board once more, meaning the entire case will be considered on its merits for a second time once the original decision is quashed.

In May 2022, the Irish Examiner first reported that Mr Hyde had voted to override his own planning inspectors in the vast majority of applications for telecommunications masts over a near-two-year period.

He had, in fact voted, voted to overturn refusal recommendations by planning inspectors in 31 of 36 mast applications in the 20 months from September of 2020.

By contrast, other members of the then nine-strong board voted to overturn the recommendation of planning inspectors on three out of nine occasions over the same timeframe.

While it was not unusual for board members to overrule its own inspectors, informed sources at that time indicated such overrulings occured in roughly 10% of cases, making Mr Hyde’s rate of overturning his own inspectors roughly eight times the average.

It had also been argued that the sheer rate at which Mr Hyde presided over telecommunications mast decisions — he was involved in roughly 75% of the 100 decisions made — defied logic, given cases considered by the board were supposed to have been randomly allocated.

The commission had not replied to a request for comment at the time of writing.

The Department of Housing — the commission’s parent body — said it would not comment on a specific legal case, saying any decision “is a matter for the commission, who are independent in undertaking prescribed functions set out in the planning and development acts”.

“The outcome of these long-running proceedings represents a vindication for Peter and Doreen Thomson, who persevered in their efforts over the past number of years to shine a light on the pre-determination of cases by senior members of what was An Bord Pleanála,” Eoin Brady, partner at FP Logue solicitors, who handled the Thomsons case, said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.msn.com/en-ie/politics/government/planning-board-drops-defence-of-case-taken-against-granting-of-permission-to-build-telecommunications-mast/ar-AA1RvzBh

ALSO: Kilkenny couple did the public an enormous service in bringing State to heel over phone mast decision https://web.archive.org/web/20251202025348/https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

Source Article: EMR Australia

Can everyday levels of electromagnetic fields make us feel sick?

A new study from France suggests that they can.

Laurène Sonzogni and team were interested in determining whether exposure could cause symptoms of ill health, otherwise known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Whereas many EHS studies to date have looked at how exposure affects people’s behaviour, Sonogni’s team was more interested in how it affects cells. Cells, unlike people, are unaffected by beliefs.

The study investigated 26 volunteers with self-diagnosed EHS who answered questions and provided skin samples to the researchers.

With the information from the questionnaire, the researchers were able to determine just how severe the volunteers’ symptoms were. The symptoms they assessed were: ‘eye pathologies, pain in muscles and cartilages, cardiac system pathologies, digestive system pathologies, fatigue and sleep disorders, mood instability, and nervousness, slowing down of intellectual activity, headaches, and tinnitus, skin pathologies, genito-urinary pathologies.’

The results showed that the severity of the symptoms ranged from zero (no reaction) to five (extreme pain and discomfort). According to the authors, ‘The highest self-assessed intensities of discomfort were obtained for cerebral features like headaches, tinnitus, slowing down of intellectual activity, fatigue, and sleep disorders.’

Interestingly, the researchers found that the volunteers could be broadly divided into two separate groups, each of which reacted differently to exposure.

Group 1 (LBHR)

• Volunteers in this group experienced low levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures below UHF, but higher levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures to Ultra High Frequencies (UHF; 300 MHz to 3 GHz).
• This group ’was particularly associated with impairment of cardiac and digestive systems, mood instability, nervousness, headaches, tinnitus and skin reactions.’
• Fibroblast skin cells had ‘limited amounts of spontaneous DSB [double-strand DNA breaks] and MN [micronuclei – signs of chromosome instability], like cells from patients showing moderate radiosensitivity.’
• ‘The LBHR phenotype was associated with an early formation of radiation-induced MRE11 foci and high cancer risk’.

Group 2 (HBLR)

• Volunteers in this group experienced high levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures below UHF but lower symptoms and discomfort from exposure to UHF.
• This group ‘was particularly associated with fatigue, sleep disorders, and the decrease of intellectual capacity’.
• Fibroblast skin cells showed ‘very high amounts of spontaneous DSB and MN, like those of the most hyper-radiosensitive cell lines’.
• ‘[T]he HBLR phenotype was associated with both spontaneous formation of perinuclear pATM crowns and late formation of radiation-induced MRE11, common features of high risk of accelerated aging.’

From their observations, the authors concluded that ‘EHS may be related to the management of SSB and/or DSB [single- and/or double-strand DNA breaks].’

READ FULL STUDY:

Skin Fibroblasts from Individuals Self-Diagnosed as Electrosensitive Reveal Two Distinct Subsets with Delayed Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in Common. Sonzogni L, Al-Choboq J, Combemale P, Massardier-Pilonchéry A, Bouchet A, May P, Doré JF, Debouzy JC, Bourguignon M, Dréan YL, Foray N. Int J Mol Sci. 2025 May 16;26(10):4792.

doi: 10.3390/ijms26104792. PMID: 40429933; PMCID: PMC12112057.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4792

J. C. Lin, “Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer and Use of Smart Phones [Health Matters],” in IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 14-16, Jan. 2026,

doi: 10.1109/MMM.2025.3613612.

Date of Publication: 05 January 2026

Author: Professor James C Lin is an ex member of ICNIRP

PDF https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=11329092

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned 12 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The health outcomes selected for those reviews (cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects) were based on a WHO-conducted international survey. The SR of the studies of cancer in laboratory animal studies was the only one that did not include a MA, because those authors considered it inappropriate due to methodological differences among the available studies, including differences in exposure characteristics (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization), experimental parameters (hours/day of exposure, duration of exposure, exposure systems), and different biological models. MAs in all the other SRs suffered from relatively few primary studies available for each MA (sometimes due to excessive subgrouping), exclusion of relevant studies, weaknesses in many of the included primary studies, lack of a framework for analyzing complex processes such as those involved in cognitive functions, and/or high between-study heterogeneity. Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. However, the animal cancer SR, which was rated as “high certainty of evidence” for heart schwannomas and “moderate certainty of evidence” for brain gliomas, provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk. The multiple and significant dose-related adverse effects found in the SRs on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcome should also serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human reproductive risks. The report of harmful effects (e.g., cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) at doses below the adverse health effect threshold claimed by ICNIRP demonstrates that current exposure limits to RF-EMF, which were established by applying arbitrary uncertainty factors to their putative adverse threshold dose, lack scientific credibility….

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

See Also

Microwave News article : ICBE-EMF: Health Reviews Suffer from Faulty Analysis & ICNIRP Bias

Source Website : ICBE International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Wireless technologies are everywhere — from mobile phones and Wi-Fi routers to Bluetooth gadgets. While these devices offer convenience, they also emit wireless radiation, a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. 

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, a UK medical doctor and founder of the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE), raises urgent concerns about the health impacts of non-ionizing radiation, especially for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, those with electromagnetic sensitivity, and the chronically ill.

In this presentation, Dr. Mallery-Blythe highlights how current safety standards for wireless radiation (ICNIRP and FCC limits) fail to account for these risks, leaving millions exposed without adequate protection…..

Health Risks of Wireless for Children, Elderly & Vulnerable Groups Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe

Source: International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICEB-EMF.org)

In this video, Ron Melnick, PhD, chairperson of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) explains why existing safety standards for wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation are outdated. 

Melnick led the design of landmark studies at the National Toxicology Program that found links between cell phone RF radiation exposure and cancer in animals, yet regulatory agencies never acted on the findings. He has served on numerous scientific review boards and was a member of the scientific working group of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluation of cell phone and wireless RF.

Melnick emphasizes that current radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, set in the 1990s and reaffirmed in 2020, are outdated and based only on short-term animal tests that ignored long-term and non-thermal effects….

Ronald Melnick PhD Wireless Health and Environment: A Global Framework for Protection