top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert O Young DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner

Independent Science on the Effects of EMF Radiation on Human Health

Updated: Sep 5, 2022

Published : 2020, June 29 Updated September 5th, 2022!

Author: Robert O Young CPC, MSc, DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner

Long-term exposure to wireless radiation is a proven health hazard. 5G puts your privacy, security, safety and property values at risk.


“Putting in tens of millions of antennae without a single test of biological safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has ever had." -Martin Pall, PhD, Bioscientist, Washington State Univ.


"We can no longer assume that any current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing.” -Dr. Ronald Melnick, PhD, U.S. Toxicology Program


“We’re kind of flying blind [with 5G] here, so far as health and safety is concerned.”

-U. S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT)



There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. Here we present some of the most recent. 


I. Effects On Fetal And Newborn Development

  1. The Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation on Mice Fetus Weight, Length and Tissues. Alimohammadi, I., et al. Data in Brief 19:2189-2194 (2018).

  2. Lasting Hepatotoxic Effects of Prenatal Mobile Phone Exposure. Yilmaz, A., et al. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 30(11): 1355-1359 (2017).

  3. Multiple Assessment Methods of Prenatal Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from Telecommunication in the Mothers and Children’s Environmental Health (MOCEH) Study. Choi, Ha, et al. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 29(6):959-972 (2016).

  4. A Review on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and the Reproductive System. Asghari, Khaki, et al. Electronic Physician 8(7):2655-2662 (2016).

  5. Neurodegenerative Changes and Apoptosis Induced by Intrauterine and Extrauterine Exposure of Radiofrequency Radiation. Güler, Göknur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):128-133 (2015).

  6. Use of Mobile Phone During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion. Mahmoudabadi, Ziaei, et al. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering  13:34 (2015).

  7. Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation. Yakymenko, et al.  Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 34(3):1-16 (2015).

  8. Effects of Prenatal 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field Exposures on the Histology of Rat Kidney. Ulubay, et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology 91(1):35-41 (2015).

  9. Dosimetric Study of Fetal Exposure to Uniform Magnetic Fields at 50 Hz. Liorni, et al. Bioelectromagnetics  35(8):580-97 (2014).

  10. Influence of Pregnancy Stage and Fetus Position on the Whole-Body and Local Exposure of the Fetus to RF-EMF. Varsier, et al. Physics in Medicine and Biology 59(17):4913-26 (2014).

  11. Autism-Relevant Social Abnormalities in Mice Exposed Perinatally to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Alsaeed, et al. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 37:58-6 (2014).

  12. Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Variations Induced in Mouse Embryos by Mobile Phone Radiation. Fragopoulou, Koussoulakos, et al. Pathophysiology 17(3):169-77 (2010).

  13. Stress Signalling Pathways that Impair Prefrontal Cortex Structure and Function. Arnsten, A. F. National Review of Neuroscience 10, 410–22 (2009).

  14. Reproductive and Developmental Effects of EMF in Vertebrate Animal Models. Pourlis, A.F. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):179-89 (2009).

  15. Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Epidemiology19(4):523-29 (2008).

  16. Cell Death Induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation. Panagopoulos, et al. Mutation Research626, 69–78 (2006).

  17. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Biederman, J. & Faraone, S. V. Lancet 366, 237–248 (2005).

II. Effects On Young Children

  1. Prospective Cohort Analysis of Cellphone Use and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Children. Sudan, M, et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2016). 

  2. Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences. Morgan, Kesari, et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2(4):196-204 (2014).

  3. Epidemiological Characteristics of Mobile Phone Ownership and Use in Korean Children and Adolescents. Byun, Yoon-Hwan, et al. Environmental Health and Toxicology 28 (2013).

  4. Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: Update of the Epidemiological evidence. Schüz and Joachim. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):339-42 (2011).

  5. Cell Phone Use and Behavioural Problems in Young Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 66(6):524-9 (2010).

  6. Mobile Phones, Radiofrequency Fields, and Health Effects in Children-Epidemiological Studies. Feychting, Maria. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):343-348 (2010).

  7. Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Behavioral Problems in Bavarian Children and Adolescents. Thomas, Silke, et al. European Journal of Epidemiology 25(2):135-41 (2009).

  8. The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields. Repacholi, et al. Deventer. Journal of Pediatrics 116(2):303-313 (2005).

III. Brain Tumors  

  1. The 2100 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation of a 3G-Mobile Phone and the DNA Oxidative Damage in Brain. Sahin, Ozgur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):94-98 (2016).

  2. Mobile Phone Radiation Causes Brain Tumors and Should Be Classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen. Morgan, Miller, et al. International Journal of Oncology 46:1865-1871 (2015).

  3. Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study. Coureau, Bouvier, et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 71(7):514-22 (2014).

  4. Mobile Phones and Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies. Levis, Minicuci, et al. Open Environmental Sciences 6(1):1-12 (2012).

  5. On the Association Between Glioma, Wireless Phones, Heredity and Ionising Radiation. Carlberg and Hardell. PathoPhysiology19(4):243-252 (2012).

  6. Indications of Possible Brain Tumour Risk in Mobile-Phone Studies: Should We Be Concerned? Cardis and Sadetzki. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 68:169-171 (2011).

  7. Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data. Khurana, Teo, et al. Surgical Neurology72(3):205-14 (2009).

  8. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

  9. Histopathological Examinations of Rat Brains After Long-Term Exposure to GSM Mobile Phone Radiation. Grafström, Gustav, et al. Brain Research Bulletin 77(5):257-63 (2008).

  10. Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Lonn, Ahlbom, et al. Epidemiology 15(6):653-659 (2004).

IV. Parotid Gland Tumors

  1. Influence of Handheld Mobiles on Parotid: A Cohort Study. Ranjitha, G., et al. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology 29:254-258 (2017).

  2. Does Cell Phone Use Increase the Chances of Parotid Gland Tumor Development? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. De Siqueira, de Souza, et al. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 45(11) (2016). 

  3. Correlation Between Cellular Phone Use and Epithelial Parotid Gland Malignancies. Duan, Zhang, et al. Clinical Paper Head and Oncology 40(9):966-7 (2011).

  4. Mobile Phones Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Mynf, Ju, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27(33):5565-72 (2009).

  5. Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell and Carlberg. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).

  6. Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies. Sage and Carpenter. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):233-46 (2009).

  7. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

  8. Cell Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors - A Nationwide Case- Control Study. Sadetzki, Chetrit, et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(4):457-467 (2008).

V. Other Malignancies

  1. The Carcinogenic Potential of Non-Ionizing Radiations: The Cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM Radiofrequency Radiation. Soffritti, M. and Giuliani, L. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2019).

  2. Tumor Promotion by Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Below Exposure Limits for Humans. Lerchl, Klose, et al. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459(4):585-590 (2015).

  3. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).

VI. Effects On DNA

  1. Radiofrequency Radiation and Gene/Protein Expression: A Review. McNamee and Chauhan. Radiation Research 172(3):265-287 (2009).

  2. Gene and Protein Expression Following Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phones. Vanderstraeten and Verschaeve. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(9):1131-5 (2008).

  3. Gene Expression Changes in the Skin of Rats Induced by Prolonged 35 GHz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Millenbaugh, Roth, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):288-300 (2008).

  4. DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields in Vitro. Philips, Ivaschuk, et al. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45(1):103-110 (1998).

VII. Neurological/Cognitive Effects

  1. Effect of 1800-2100 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on Learning-Memory and Hippocampal Morphology in Swiss Albino Mice. Kishore, G., Venkatashu, K., and Sridevi, N. Jorunal of Clincal and Diagnostic Research 12(2): 14-17 (2019).

  2. 2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning, Memory, and Hippocampal Synaptic Plasticity in The Rat. Karimi, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 34(12): 873-883 (2018).

  3. Mobile Phone Distance From Head and Temperature Changes of Radio Frequency Waves on Brain Tissue. Forouharmajd, F., Ebrahimi, H. and Pourabdian, S. International Journal of Preventative Medicine (2018).

  4. The Effect of Wi-Fi Electromagnetic Waves in Unimodal and Multimodal Object Recognition Tasks in Male Rats. Hassanshahi, A., et al. Neurological Sciences 38(6):1069-1076 (2017). 

  5. Effects of Short and Long Term Electromagnetic Fields Exposure on the Human Hippocampus. Deniz, O.G., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):191-197 (2017). 

  6. Effects of Long Term Exposure of 900-1800 MHz Radiation Emitted from 2G Mobile Phone on Mice Hippocampus – A Histomorphometric Study. Mugunthan, Shanmugasamy, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(8):AF01-6 (2016).

  7. Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Pentylenetetrazole-Induced Seizure Threshold in Mice. Kouchaki, Motaghedifard, et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 19(7):800-3 (2016).

  8. Short-Term Memory in Mice is Affected by Mobile Phone Radiation. Ntzouni, Stamatakis, et al. PathoPhysiology 18(3):193-199 (2011).

  9. Use of Mobile Phones and Changes in Cognitive Function in Adolescents. Thomas, Benke, et al. Occupational Environmental Medicine 67(12):861-866 (2010).

  10. Effects of GSM 1800 MHz on Dendritic Development of Cultured Hippocampal Neurons. Ning, Xu, et al. Acta Pharmacol Sin28(12):1873-1880 (2007).

  11. Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Lai, Henry. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems1:27-80 (1994).

VIII. Effects On Male Fertility

  1. Radiations and Male Fertility. Kesari, K., Agarwal, A. and Henkel, R. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 16(118) (2018).

  2. Modulatory Effect of 900 MHz Radiation on Biochemical and Reproductive Parameters in Rats. Narayana, SN., et al. Bratislava Medical Journal119(9):581-587 (2018).

  3. Male Fertility and its Association with Occupational and Mobile Phone Tower Hazards: An Analytical Study. Al-Quzwini, Al-Taee, et al. Middle East Fertility Society Journal (2016).

  4. Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M, et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28, 148-154 (2016). 

  5. Habits of Cell Phone usage and Sperm Quality - Does It Warrant Attention? Zilverlight, Wiener-Megnazi, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31(3):421-426 (2015).

  6. Extremely Low frequency Magnetic Fields Induce Spermatogenic Germ Cell Apoptosis: Possible Mechanism. Lee, Park, et al. BioMed Research International 2014(2014): 567183 (2014).

  7. In Vitro Effect of Cell Phone Radiation on Motility, DNA Fragmentation and Clusterin Gene Expression in Human Sperm. Zalata, El-Samanoudy, et al. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 9(1):129-136 (2014).

  8. Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Reproductive System. Gye and Park. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39(1):1-19 (2012).

  9. Effects of the Exposure of Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature. Vignera, Condorelli, et al. Journal of Andrology 33(3):350-356 (2012).

  10. Exposure to Magnetic fields and the Risk of Poor Sperm Quality. Li, Yan, et al. Journal of Reproductive Toxicology 29(1):86-92 (2010).

  11. Cell Phones: Modern Man's Nemesis? Makker, Varghese, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18(1):148-157 (2008).

  12. Cell Phones and Male Infertility: Dissecting the Relationship. Deepinder, Makker, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15(3):266-270 (2007).

  13. Evaluation of the Effect of Using Mobile Phones on Male Fertility. Wdowiak, Wiktor, et al. Annals of Agricultural and Medicine14(1):169-172 (2007).

  14. Effect of Cell Phone Usage on Semen Analysis in Men Attending Infertility Clinic: An Observational Study. Agarwal, Deepinder, et al. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 89(1):124-8 (2008). 

IX. Electromagnetic Sensitivity

  1. Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40: 188-200 (2019).

  2. Hot Nano Spots" as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, Helmut. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69 (2016).

  3. Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, Singh, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10 (3):ZC82-ZC85 (2016).

  4. Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros and Sanchez. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104 (2016).

  5. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius and Lipp. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112 (2012).

  6. Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health 236-238 (2010). 

  7. Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, El-Fateh, et al. NeuroToxicology28(2):434-440 (2007).

  8. Electrohypersensitivity: State-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258 (2006).

  9. Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, Maila. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170 (2006).

  10. Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysical Effects of Cellular Phones - Facts or Needless Anxiety? Harma, Mikko Ilmari. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86 (2000). 

X. Effects On Implanted Medical Devices

  1. Electromagnetic Interference of Pacemakers. Lakshmanadoss, Chinnachamy, et al. Interchopen 229-252 (2011).

  2. Interference Between Mobile Phones and Pacemakers: A Look Inside. Censi, Calcagnini, et al. Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanità 43(3):254-259 (2007).

  3. Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers. Erdogan, Okan. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):74-78 (2002).

  4. Electromagnetic Interference in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Implantable Loop Recorders. Sousa, Klein, et al. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):79-84 (2002).

  5. Radiofrequency Interference with Medical Devices. A Technical Information Statement. IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 17(3):111-4 (1998).

  6. Cellular Telephones and Pacemakers: Urgent Call or Wrong Number? Ellenbogen and Wood. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 27(6):1478-9 (1996).

XI. 5G Effects

  1. Ocular Response to Millimeter Wave Exposure Under Different Levels of Humidity. Kojima, M., et al. Journal of Infrared Milli Terahz Waves 40: 574–584 (2019).

  2. Millimeter Wave Radiation Activates Leech Nociceptors via TRPV1-Like Receptor Sensitization. Romanenko, S., et al. Biophysical Journal 116(12): 2331-2345 (2019).

  3. Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are There Health Implications? Ciaula, AD. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 367-375 (2018). 

  4. 5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications. Russell, C.L. Environmental Research 165:484-495 (2018).

  5. The Human Skin As A Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger To It or Not? Betzalel, N., Ishai, P.B., and Feldman, Y. Environmental Research163:208-216 (2018).

  6. The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sun-THz Radiation by Human Skin. Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., and Ishai, P.B. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 7(5):521-528 (2017).

  7. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Nasim, I. and Kim, S. Georgia Southern University (2017).

  8. The Human body and Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications. Wu, T., Rappaport, T., and Collins, C. IEEE International Conference on Communications (2015).

  9. State of Knowledge on Biological Effects at 40-60 GHz. Drean, Y., et al. Comptes Rendus Physique (2013).

  10. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane-A brief review. Ramundo-Orlando, Alfonsina. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 31(12): 1400-1411 (2010)

  11. Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Feldman, Y., et al. The American Physical Society (2008).

XII. Miscellaneous Articles

  1. Computational Simulations of The Penetration of 0.30 THz Radiation into the Human Ear. Vilaagosh, Z., et al. Biomedical Optics Express 10(3) (2019).

  2. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Risk Perception: A Pilot Experimental Study. Zeleke, B., et al. Environmental Research 170: 493-499 (2019).

  3. Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Kocaman, A., et al. Environmental Research 163:71-79 (2018). 

  4. Non-Ionizing EMF Hazard in the 21st CenturyKoh, W.J., and Moochhala, S.M. IEEE (2018).

  5. Wi-Fi is an Important Threat to Human Health. Pall, M. Environmental Research 405-416 (2018).

  6. World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review). Hardell, L. International Journal of Oncology51:405-413 (2017).

  7. Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Identify Emerging Environmental Risk Factors. Bandara, P. & Weller, S. European Journal of Preventative Cardiology (2017).

  8. Effects of Exposure to 2100MHz GSM-like Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field on Auditory System of Rats. Celiker, Ozgur, et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (2017).

  9. An Investigation of the Effect of Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Electrocardiograms (ECGs). Fang, Mahmoud, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(11) (2016).

  10. Awareness Campaign Against Cell Phone Radiation Hazard: Case Study Oman. Osmen and Saar. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 205(9):381-385 (2015).

  11. Electromagnetic Energy Radiated from Mobile Phone Alters Electrocardiographic Records of Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Alhusseiny, Al-Nimer, et al. Annals of Medical and Health Science Research 2(2):146-151 (2012).

  12. Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Ferritin: An in vitro Enzymun Assay. Fattahi-asl, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi, et al. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors 2(4):235-240 (2012).

  13. Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure. Ahlbom, Green, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(17):1741-1753 (2004).

  14. he Possible Role of Radiofrequency Radiation in the Development of Uveal Melanoma Stang, Anastassiou, et al. Journal of Epidemiology 12(1):7-12 (2001).

  15. Biological Effects of Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Radiation. Juutilainen and Seze. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 24(2):245-254 (1998).

Conclusion

The notion that exposure to radio-frequency microwave radiation is not harmful to humans, which has been the underlying principle of all federal legislation and regulations regarding wireless technologies for more than twenty years, has now been proven false. 


The substantial body of credible science documenting harm from exposure to various levels and frequencies of wireless radiation mandate a precautionary approach to the widespread deployment of wireless technologies to reduce potential harm to the public and the environment. [1]


While some studies on wireless radiation exposure found no effects, hundreds of studies did find biological effects occurring at levels at or below current U.S. standards. This has prompted more than 240 scientists with published peer-reviewed research on wireless radiation and health to sign an appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations, calling for precautionary health warnings and stronger regulation of wireless radiation. [2]


As the wireless industry ramps up its hype for the next generation of wireless communication, hundreds of thousands of new cellular antennas will be deployed on the ground and in the air, resulting in an increase in the complexity of EMR frequencies, pulsations and density which have not been shown safe for humans. Respected researchers have given us a much better foundation from which we can extrapolate that this increased EMR exposure is an undeniable risk to our health and the environment. [3]


Additional References


1. “BioInitiative Working Group.” Sage, C. and Carpenter D., Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation, www.bioinitiative.org, (2012).; Levitt, B. B., & Lai, H., “Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays.” Environmental Reviews, 18(NA), 369-395. (2010).


2. EMF Scientists Appeal to the United Nations and the WHO for more protective EMF guidelines. EMFScientist.org. https://emfscientist.org/images/docs/International_EMF_Scientist-Appeal.pdf (2015).


3. Kostoff, R. N., and GY Lau, C., “Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature.” Microwave effects on DNA and proteins. Springer, Cham, 97-157. (2017).; Pall, M. L., “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 17.8: 958-965. (2013).


The Pampers Petition


Help Get the #1 Dumbest “Smart” Product Off the Market!


How would you like it if we put a wireless antenna inside your pants?! Chances are, you wouldn’t like it one bit, especially if you knew that the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently completed a $30 million-dollar study that found “clear evidence” of cancer associated with exposure to wireless radiation.


Pampers recently launched its line of Lumi “smart” diapers which are equipped with a wireless-enabled sensor that can track when a diaper needs changing. If you think putting a wireless device on or near a baby’s reproductive system is wrong, please sign the petition to Pampers now and demand that they take their “smart” diapers off the market.


Let's Reduce Children's Exposure to Wireless Radiation!


Over the past several decades, independent researchers have published thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies documenting serious adverse health impacts from exposure to wireless radiation, ranging from neurological and behavioral problems to cancer. (Some of those studies are available here for your review).


Companies selling “smart” tech products claim that their wireless devices meet all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure limits, and while that may be true, the guidelines themselves are almost 25 years out of date and were never designed to protect children. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sent a formal letter to the FCC complaining that its wireless radiation exposure limits do not account for the unique physiological vulnerabilities of children, nor do they reflect current use patterns of wireless devices.


Dr. Hugh Taylor, the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the Yale School of Medicine encourages his patients and pregnant women to “do your best to keep your cell phone away from your baby” and mitigate exposure to wireless radiation whenever possible.


With that, please sign the petition demanding that Pampers take their “smart” Lumi diapers off the market. The science says that wireless antennas don’t belong near our babies’ reproductive systems!


Please sign these petitions by going to the link below: https://www.5gcrisis.com/pampers


The Effects of EMF after CoV - 19 Vaccination



Below is the PDF file on Graphene Oxide, Vaccines and EMF



ASMS-06-1351 (6)
.pdf
Download PDF • 1.19MB

GrapheneOxideVaccinePaperUpdated
.pdf
Download PDF • 3.67MB


5,460 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page