Cell Phones
In the United States, the radiation emitted by cell phones, known as radiofrequency (RF) radiation, is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Given the ubiquitous use of cell phones today, the question has been asked: Is cell phone radiation safe? [92]
Cell phones transmit their signals using RF wavelengths, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic waves move (radiate) through space at the speed of light via interaction between their electric and magnetic fields and can penetrate solid objects such as cars and buildings. Cordless phones using telephone landlines, television, radio, and Wi-Fi also use RF radiation to transmit their signals.[72]
The RF radiation from cell phones is contained in the low end (nonionizing portion) of the broader electromagnetic spectrum just above radio and television RF and just below microwave RF. At high exposure levels, nonionizing radiation can produce a thermal or heating effect (this is how microwaves heat food). Exposure to the high-end (ionizing) radiation of ultraviolet light, X-rays, and Gamma rays is known to cause cancer. [72]
On Apr. 3, 1973, the world’s first portable cell phone, the DynaTAC (also known as “the brick”), was introduced in the United States by Martin Cooper at Motorola. The phone was one foot long, weighed two pounds, and cost $4,000. The first commercial cell phone system was launched on Oct. 13, 1983, in Chicago by Ameritech Mobile Communications (now part of AT&T).[93][94][95]
On Feb. 26, 1985, the first safety guidelines for RF radiation were enacted by the FCC to ensure that people were not exposed to dangerous “thermal effects”—levels of RF that could heat human flesh to harmful temperatures. [27]
In 1993 concern over a possible link between brain tumors and cell phone use became a major public issue when CNN’s Larry King Live show reported on David Reynard, who sued a cell phone manufacturer in a Florida U.S. District Court for causing his wife’s brain tumor. The case, Reynard v. NEC, was later rejected in 1995 by the court. [73]
On Aug. 7, 1996, the FCC expanded its guidelines on RF exposure with input from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The guidelines created a measure of the rate that body tissue absorbs RF energy during cell phone use called the specific absorption rate (SAR). The SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight per cell phone call that averages 30 minutes when the cell phone is held at the ear.[3]
SAR levels for cell phones sold in the U.S. range from a low of .109 watts to the maximum of 1.6 watts. Holding a cell phone away from the body while using a earpiece or speaker phone lowers the amount of radiation absorbed, and text messaging, rather than talking, further lowers that amount.[3]
The FDA and the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA) signed a research agreement in 2000 to further investigate the health effects of cell phones. They concluded that “no association was found between exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones and adverse health effects.” [74]
In 2001 Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) commissioned the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to compile a report on the safety of cell phones. The May 2001 GAO report, “Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues,” concluded that there was no scientific evidence proving that cell phone radiation had any “adverse health effects” but that more research on the topic was needed.[5]
In July 2008, Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, issued a warning to hospital faculty and staff to decrease direct cell phone exposure to the head and body due to a possible connection between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. As a result of his warning, on Sep. 25, 2008, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the possible link between cell phone use and tumors to learn more about the possible risks. On Sep. 14, 2009, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations held a similar hearing entitled “The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use.”[25][26][79]
In 2008 the $148.1 billion wireless industry boasted over 270 million American subscribers (87% of the population) who used over 2.2 trillion minutes of call time. [34][35]
On May 17, 2010, the largest study to date on cell phone radiation and brain tumor formation was released. The INTERPHONE study, a 13-country, 10-year, $25-million endeavor, found that there was no overall increase in the risk of the brain tumors glioma or meningioma among cell phone users, but also found “suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, at the highest exposure levels.” The study concluded that the evidence was not strong enough to prove a causal link between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. [36]
On June 22, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9–1 to make the city the nation’s first to require that retailers post cellphone radiation levels prominently in their stores. On July 23, 2010, CTIA, the trade group representing the cell phone industry, sued the city of San Francisco to stop the implementation of the law, and on Oct. 27, 2011, a federal judge struck down the San Francisco ordinance. On May 7, 2013, San Francisco settled the lawsuit and agreed to a permanent injunction against implementation of the law.[23][80][81][82]
On Feb. 23, 2011, the first study showing that cell phone radiation causes biological effects in the human brain other than heating (thermal effects) was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study found increased glucose metabolism in the areas of the brain closest to the cell phone antenna. [83]
On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (group 2B agents). Other group 2B agents include coffee, TDD, pickled vegetables, and lead. The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists finished a review of previously published studies and found “limited evidence of carcinogenicity” from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. [37][38]
On Oct. 20, 2011, the British Medical Journal published a study of 358,403 Danish citizens that concluded that “there was no association between tumors of the central nervous system or brain and long term (10 years +) use of mobile phones.” [39]
On Oct. 18, 2012, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that a causal link between cell phone use and tumor formation exists. The appellant, Innocenzo Marcolini, argued that his benign neurinoma tumor was caused by the five to six hours a day he spent talking on his cell phone for work over a 12-year period. Based on the Court opinion “that scientific evidence advanced in support of the claim was reliable,” the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Marcolini was entitled to an 80% disability pension from the Italian Worker’s Compensation Authority. [40]
On July 24, 2012, the U.S. GAO released a report on exposure and testing requirements for cell phones and concluded that the FCC should “formally reassess” the effect of cell phone radiation on human health and the radiation exposure limit set by the FCC in 1996. On Mar. 29, 2013, the FCC officially opened an inquiry on this recommendation. [75][76]
On May 26, 2016, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) released the initial findings of its 10-year, $25 million study into whether or not RF radiation from cell phones and wireless networks can cause cancer. The study found an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation, and concluded that the tumors were “considered likely the result of whole-body exposures” to two types of RF radiation used in U.S. cell phones and wireless networks. The findings of the study have been criticized by some researchers, including the Deputy Director of the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research, Michael Lauer, who stated in his review that he was “unable to accept the authors’ conclusions.” [85][86]
On Nov. 1, 2018, the NTP released its final peer-reviewed report, concluding that there is “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in male rats exposed to RF radiation. However, the FDA stated in a Nov. 1, 2018, press release that they disagree “with the conclusions of their [NTP’s] final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy,” and reiterated that “the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures” to cellphone RF radiation.[87][88]
As of July 2018, the $475 billion wireless industry had over 400 million wireless devices in use in the United States and 323,448 cell phone tower sites across the country. [89]
In 2019, the beginning of the 5G rollout reignited the cell phone radiation safety debate. Subham Dasgupta, postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology at Oregon State University who studied 5G’s effects on zebra fish, stated, “Based on our study, we don’t think 5G radiation is that harmful. It’s predominately benign.”[90] However, Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, stated that we need “an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.” [91]
As of 2022, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), there were over 8.58 billion global cell phone subscriptions, while the global population was 7.95 billion.[96][97][98][113]
As of Jan. 31 2024, 97% of Americans owned a cell phone, up 85% from 2011 when just 35% of Americans owned a cell phone. 90% of Americans owed a smartphone.[112]
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the FCC. Read More. | Con 1: The IARC has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen. Read More. |
| Pro 2: Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is nonionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer. Read More. | Con 2: Cell phones emit RF radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals. Read More. |
| Pro 3: Peer-reviewed studies have found no evidence that cell phone use causes an increased risk of brain tumors. Read More. | Con 3: Peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified to remain within levels deemed safe by the FCC.
The FCC sets the maximum amount of thermal radiation (heat) that cell phones are permitted to emit. This limit is measured as the amount of radiation absorbed by a user and is known as the specific absorption rate (SAR).[3]
In 1996 the SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of body weight. Manufacturers of cell phones must test their products to ensure that they meet this standard. Random tests of phones on the market by FCC scientists further ensure that radiation levels meet FCC guidelines.[48]
Further, U.S. government agencies conclude there is no scientific evidence proving that cell phones cause cancer or other health problems. The FCC, U.S. GAO, and the FDA, have all concluded that there is no evidence in the scientific literature proving that cell phones cause brain tumors or other health problems. According to the FDA, “attempts to replicate and confirm the few studies that did show a connection [between cell phone radiation and head tumors] have failed.”[4][5] [47][69][4][5][47][69]
Pro 2: Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is nonionizing and is not powerful enough to cause cancer.
Ionizing radiation, including X-rays and ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions that have either too many or too few electrons. Ions are known to damage DNA and cause cancer. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is nonionizing and lacks sufficient energy to add or remove electrons from molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and cause cancer. [2]
Like cell phones, other devices including radios, televisions, cordless phones, and pagers all safely transmit signals using RF radiation. Radio has used RF radiation since at least 1893 and television has used it since at least 1939. The safe, long-term use of those RF-using devices helps prove that cell phones are also safe.[77][78]
According to the authors of a 2005 study of 3.7 million Swedish residents, a “biologic mechanism that could explain any possible carcinogenic effect from radiofrequency radiation has not been identified.” [42]
Pro 3: Peer-reviewed studies have found no evidence that cell phone use causes an increased risk of brain tumors.
A May 21, 2021, study concluded, “Canadian trends in glioma [brain tumors] and cell phone use were not compatible with increased risks of glioma.” Other studies have similarly concluded that there is no association between cell phone use and brain tumors. [1][39][41][42][45][49][50][99][104]
Studies that conclude there is an association between cell phone use and cancer have serious limitations that invalidate the results including small sample groups, inconsistent results, and the fact that most studies use rats. Further, some studies have asserted a link between cell phones and cancer, but studied types of radiation not emitted by cell phones.[100][101][102]
An “association” is not proof of a causal link. As explained by an article in Nature Methods: “As an example, suppose we observe that people who daily drink more than 4 cups of coffee have a decreased chance of developing skin cancer. This does not necessarily mean that coffee confers resistance to cancer.” [103]
Further, there has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years. Globally, there are more cell phones than people as of 2019, however, brain tumors account for only 1.8% of cancer cases worldwide. [16][110]
As of Apr. 2021, 97% of Americans used a cell phone, compared to 2011 when just 35% did so. In 2011 the observed rate of new brain and nervous system cancers was 6.2 per 100,000 people. In 2018, according to the National Cancer Institute, the rate was 6.0, a slight decline in cases as cell phone adoption had dramatically increased.[92][109]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: The IARC has classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen.
On May 31, 2011, the IARC of the WHO issued a press release announcing it had added cell phone radiation to its list of physical agents that are “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (group 2B agents). [38]
The classification was made after a working group of 31 scientists completed a review of previously published studies and found “limited evidence of carcinogenicity” from the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless phones, radio, television, and radar. [37]
Con 2: Cell phones emit RF radiation, and RF radiation has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer in laboratory animals.
On May 26, 2016, the U.S. NTP released the first results of its study on cell phone radiation, finding an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the brain (gliomas) and heart tumors (schwannomas) in rats exposed to RF radiation. The NTP researchers also found DNA damage in the rats exposed to the highest levels of RF radiation. On Nov. 1, 2018, the NTP released its final report, concluding that there is “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in male rats exposed to RF radiation. [85][86][87]
A Jan. 2012 study in the Journal of Neuro-Oncology concluded that RF radiation “may damage DNA and change gene expression in brain cells” in mice. [61]
An Aug. 2009 meta-study found that RF radiation “can alter the genetic material of exposed cells.” A 2004 European Union-funded study also found that cell phone radiation can damage genes. [62][63]
Con 3: Peer-reviewed studies have shown an association between cell phone use and the development of brain tumors.
In 2018 the NTP concluded, “high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with: Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.”[2]
“Some evidence of an association with tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas. Some evidence of an association with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.” The NTP indicated “clear evidence” of a link between cell phone radiation and cancer, the highest category of evidence used by the NTP. [106][107]
A Feb. 2017 study concluded, “We found evidence linking mobile phone use and risk of brain tumors especially in long-term users (≥10 years). Studies with higher quality showed a trend towards high risk of brain tumor, while lower quality showed a trend towards lower risk/protection.” [105]
And other studies have similarly concluded that there is an association between cell phone use and increased risk of developing brain and head tumors.[12][13][51][53][54][55][84][108]
Children may have an increased risk of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. A 2016 meta-analysis of studies concerning cell phone use and cancer concluded in “children and teenagers, cell phone use is associated with the incidence of brain tumors.” A July 2008 study shows that children under the age of eight absorb twice the amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due to their lower skull thickness. As younger kids carry and use cell phones 24/7, this becomes a serious concern for the health of the next generations.[17][111]
Discussion Questions
- Should cell phone users be concerned about cell phone radiation? Why or why not?
- Should the U.S. government ask for more studies about the effects of cell phone radiation? Why or why not?
- Investigate other potential consequences of cell phone use including but not limited to digital addiction and distracted driving.
Take Action
- Analyze studies that link cell phone radiation to cancer at Scientific American.
- Explore the National Cancer Institute’s examination of cell phone radiation and cancer risk.
- Consider the FDA’s position on cell phone radiation.
- Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
- Push for the position and policies you support by writing U.S. national senators and representatives.
Sources
- Joachim Schuz et al. “Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006
- Erick Swanson, “Stop Freaking Out About Cell Phones,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 3, 2008
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC), “Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation,” Federal Register, Aug. 7, 1996
- FCC, “Radio Frequency Safety,” fcc.gov (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues,” gao.gov, May 2001
- National Cancer Institute, “Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk,” cancer.gov (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA), “CTIA Consumer Info: Driving Tips,” ctia.org (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- Adam D. Thierer, “Here Come the Federal Cell Phone Cops,” CATO Institute, cato.org, June 25, 2001
- R.J. Croft et al., “Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review of Epidemiological Research,” Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, Dec. 2008
- Christopher Baker, “Cell Phones for Safety and Security in Case of an Emergency,” American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Public Policy Institute, aarp.org, June 2006
- American Heart Association, “Pacemakers,” americanheart.org (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- Lennart Hardell et al., “Meta-Analysis of Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and the Association With Brain Tumours,” International Journal of Oncology, Mar. 2008
- M.J. Schoemaker, et al., “Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma: Results of the Interphone Case-Control Study in Five North European Countries,” British Journal of Cancer, Aug. 2005
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “NHTSA Policy and FAQs on Cellular Phone Use While Driving,” nhtsa.dot.gov (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- George Carlo and Martin Schram, Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, An Insiders Alarming Discoveries about Cancer and Genetic Damage, 2001
- David L. Strayer et al., “A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,” Human Factors, Summer 2006
- J. Wiart et al., “Analysis of RF Exposure in the Head Tissues of Children and Adults,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, July, 2008
- Geoffry N. De Luliss et al., “Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozo in Vitro,” Public Library of Science One, July 31, 2009
- Ashok Agarwal, “Cell Phone Radiation Degrades Semen Quality,” clevelandclinic.org (accessed Sep. 28, 2009)
- Joachim Schuz, et al., “Risks for Central Nervous System Diseases among Mobile Phone Subscribers: A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study,” Public Library of Science One, Feb. 5, 2009
- US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Interference with Pacemakers and Other Medical Devices,” fda.gov (accessed Aug. 24, 2009)
- Ben Charny, “Cell Phones: Too Hot to Handle?,” news.cnet.com, Oct. 25, 2004
- Maria L. La Ganga, “San Francisco to Require Stores to List Cellphone Radiation Levels,” Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2010
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “Status Summary: Using Wireless Communication Devices While Driving,” nytimes.com, July 2003
- Ronald B. Herberman, Statement at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing on “Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says,” domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov, Sep. 2008
- Dennis Kucinich, Opening Statement at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing on “Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says,” domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov, Sep. 2008
- FCC, “In the Matter of Responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission to Consider Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation When Authorizing the Use of Radiofrequency Devices,” fcc.gov, Feb. 26, 1985
- State of New York, “§1225-c. Use of Mobile Telephones,” nysgtsc.state.ny.us, 2001
- State of Connecticut, “Public Act No. 05-159: An Act Concerning the Use of Hand-Held Mobile Telephones by Operators of Motor Vehicles,” cga.ct.gov, 2005
- State of California, “Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use,” dmv.ca.gov, 2007
- State of New Jersey, “An Act Concerning the Use of Wireless Telephones and Electronic Communication Devices in Motor Vehicles and Amending P.L.2003, c.310,” njleg.state.nj.us, 2007
- State of Washington, “Using a Wireless Communications Device while Driving,” apps.leg.wa.gov, 2008
- State of Oregon, “House Bill 2377,” oregon.gov, 2009
- CTIA, “Year End 2008 Estimated Wireless Subscribers,” ctia.org, 2009
- CTIA, “Wireless Quick Facts,” ctia.org, 2009
- Elisabeth Cardis et al., “Brain Tumor Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE International Case-Control Study,” International Journal of Epidemiology, May 17, 2010
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans,” iarc.fr, May 31, 2011
- IARC, “Agents Classified by the IARC Monography, Volumes 1–100,” iarc.fr (accessed May 31, 2011)
- Patrizia Frei et al., “Use of Mobile Phones and Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of a Danish Cohort Study,” British Medical Journal, Oct. 20, 2011
- Library of Congress, “Italy: Supreme Court Ruling on Mobile Phones and Tumors,” loc.gov, Oct. 23, 2012
- H. Collatz Christensen et al., “Cellular Telephones and Risk for Brain Tumors,” Neurology, July 20, 2005
- Stefan Lönn et al., “Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- National Brain Tumor Society (NBTS), “NBTS Funds Groundbreaking Study on Prevalence of Brain Tumors,” braintumor.org (accessed July 22, 2013)
- CTIA-The Wireless Association, “Annual Wireless Industry Survey,” ctia.org, 2015
- Victoria S. Benson et al., “Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Brain Neoplasms and Other Cancers,” International Journal of Epidemiology, May 8, 2013
- Peter D. Inskip et al., “Cellular-Telephone Use and Brain Tumors,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 11, 2001
- FDA, “No Evidence Linking Cell Phone Use to Risk of Brain Tumors,” fda.gov, May 17, 2010
- FCC, “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cell Phones: What It Means for You,” fcc.gov, Jan. 18, 2013
- Min-Huei Hsu et al., “The Incidence Rate and Mortality of Malignant Brain Tumors after 10 Years of Intensive Cell Phone Use in Taiwan,” European Journal of Cancer Prevention, Apr. 14, 2013
- Denis Aydin et al., “Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumors in Children and Adolescents: A Multicenter Case–Control Study,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, July 27, 2011
- Vini G. Khurana et al., “Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data,” Surgical Neurology, Mar. 31, 2009
- Lennart Hardell et al., “Use of Mobile Phones and Cordless Phones Is Associated with Increased Risk for Glioma and Acoustic Neuroma,” Pathophysiology, Apr. 2013
- Michael Carlberg et al., “On the Association between Glioma, Wireless Phones, Heredity and Ionising Radiation,” Pathophysiology, Sep. 2012
- E. Cardis et al., “Risk of Brain Tumors in Relation to Estimated RF Dose from Mobile Phones: Results from Five Interphone Countries,” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, June 2011
- Devra Lee Davis et al., “Swedish Review Strengthens Grounds for Concluding That Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones Is a Probable Human Carcinogen,” Pathophysiology, Apr. 2013
- Environmental Health Trust, “Press Release: Top Doctors Urge Cell Phone Companies to Come Clean on Health Dangers Posed by Radiation,” ehtrust.org, June 23, 2011
- The INTERPHONE Study Group, “Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Results of the INTERPHONE International Case–Control Study,” International Journal of Epidemiology, May 17, 2010
- Rodolfo Saracci et al., “Commentary: Call Me on My Mobile Phone…or Better Not? - A Look at the INTERPHONE Study Results,” International Journal of Epidemiology, May 17, 2010
- Izzet Tandogan et al., “The Effects of Mobile Phones on Pacemaker Function,” International Journal of Cardiology, Aug. 2005
- American Heart Association (AHA), “Devices That May Interfere with Pacemakers,” heart.org, Aug. 16, 2012
- Emin Karaca et al., “The Genotoxic Effect of Radiofrequency Waves on Mouse Brain,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Jan. 2012
- Hugo W. Ruediger, “Genotoxic Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” Pathophysiology, Aug. 2009
- Sophy Bishop, “At Center for Ethics Event, Cell Phone Radiation and Institutional Corruption Addressed,” law.harvard.edu, Nov. 18, 2011
- Dandro La Vignera et al., “Effects of the Exposure to Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Andrology, May–June 2012
- Hozefa A. Divan et al., “Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children,” Epidemiology, Nov. 2008
- Tamir S. Aldad et al., “Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice,” Scientific Reports, Mar. 15, 2012
- Hozefa A. Divan et al., “Cell Phone Use and Behavioural Problems in Young Children,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Dec. 2010
- Bonnie Rochman, “Pediatricians Say Cell Phone Radiation Standards Need Another Look,” healthland.time.com, July 20, 2012
- FDA, “Current Research Results,” fda.gov, June 24, 2011
- CTIA-The Wireless Association, “50 Wireless Quick Facts III,” ctia.org, May 2013
- U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, and Divisions: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003,” census.gov, May 11, 2004
- Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health,” cdc.gov (accessed 9/6/2013)
- Siddhartha Mukherjee, “Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer?,” nytimes.com, Apr. 13, 2011
- FDA, “Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA),” fda.gov, May 4, 2009
- GAO, “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed,” gao.gov, July 24, 2012
- FCC, “FCC Review of RF Exposure Policies,” fcc.gov, Mar. 29, 2013
- FCC, “A Short History of Radio, with an Inside Focus on Mobile Radio,” fcc.gov, Winter 2003–2004
- FCC, “History of Communications—Historical Periods in Television Technology: 1930–1959,” fcc.gov, Nov. 21, 2005
- Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States Senate, “The Health Effects of Cell Phone Use,” gpo.gov, Sep. 14, 2009
- CTIA-The Wireless Association, “CTIA-The Wireless Association Filed Lawsuit Against San Francisco for the So-Called ‘Cell Phone Right-to-Know’ Ordinance,” ctia.org, July 23, 2012
- Paul Elias, “San Francisco Cell Phone Radiation Law Blocked by Judge,” huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 27, 2011
- Kent German, “San Francisco Finally Kills Cell Phone Radiation Law,” news.cnet.com, May 8, 2013
- Nora D. Volkow et al., “Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 23, 2011
- Lennart Hardel and Michael Carlberg, “Moblie Phone and Cordless Phone Use and the Risk for Glioma—Analysis of Pooled Case-Control Studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009,” Pathophysiology, Oct. 28, 2014
- U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), “Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (Whole Body Exposures),” biorxiv.org, May 26, 2016
- Warren Cornwall, “Questions Abound After Study Links Tumors to Cellphone Radiation,” sciencemag.org, May 27, 2016
- National Toxicology Program, “Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation,” niehs.nih.gov, Nov. 1, 2018
- FDA, “Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Radiofrequency Energy Exposure,” fda.gov, Nov. 1, 2018
- CTIA-The Wireless Association, “The State of Wireless,” ctia.org, July 10, 2018
- Marguerite Reardon, “Is 5G Making You Sick? Probably Not,” cnet.com, July 30, 2020
- Joel M. Moskowitz, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe,” scientificamerican.com, October 17, 2019
- Pew Research Center, “Mobile Fact Sheet,” pewresearch.org, Apr. 7, 2021
- National Museum of American History, “Dynatac Cellular Telephone,” americanhistory.si.edu (accessed June 22, 2021)
- Erik Gregersen et al., “Martin Cooper,” eb.com, Dec. 22, 2020
- Jane C. Hu, “Our Reliance on Cellphones Began 35 Years Ago Today,” qz.com, Oct. 13, 2018
- World Bank, “Mobile Cellular Subscriptions,” data.worldbank.org (accessed June 22, 2021)
- World Bank, “Population Total,” data.worldbank.org (accessed June 22, 2021)
- Mike Murphy, “Cellphones Now Outnumber the World’s Population,” qz.com, Apr. 29, 2019
- Ken Karipidis et al., “Mobile Phone Use and Incidence of Brain Tumour Histological Types, Grading or Anatomical Location: A Population-Based Ecological Study,” bmjopen.bmj.com, Dec. 2018
- Matthew Tontonoz, “Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?,” mskcc.org, May 20, 2019
- Retraction Watch, “‘Riddled with Errors’: Study of Cell Phones and Breast Cancer Retracted,” retractionwatch.com, Mar. 22, 2021
- Ya-Wen Shih et al., “Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation Increases the Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis,” spandidos-publications.com, Nov. 9, 2020
- Naomi Altman and Martin Krzywinski, “Association, Correlation and Causation,” nature.com, Sep. 29, 2015
- Paul J.Villeneuvea et al., “Cell Phone Use and the Risk of Glioma: Are Case-Control Study Findings Consistent with Canadian Time Trends in Cancer Incidence?,”.sciencedirect.com, May 21, 2021
- Manya Prasad et al., “Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Brain Tumours: A Systematic Review of Association between Study Quality, Source of Funding, and Research Outcomes,” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Feb, 17, 2017
- NTP, “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation,” ntp.niehs.nih.gov (accessed June 29, 2021)
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, “High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats,” niehs.nih.gov, Nov. 1, 2018
- Suzanne Potter, “New Studies Link Cell Phones to Breast and Thyroid Cancer Risk,” publicnewsservice.org, Dec. 15, 2020
- National Cancer Institute, “Cancer Stat Facts: Brain and Other Nervous System Cancer,” seer.cancer.gov (accessed June 29, 2021)
- BrainLab, “How Common Are Brain Tumors?,” brainlab.org (accessed June 29, 2021)
- Lige Leng, “The Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Brain Tumor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Trails in the Last Decade,” cnjournal.biomedcentral.com, 2016
- Pew Research Center, “Mobile Fact Sheet,” pewresearch.org, Jan. 31, 2024
- Felix Richter, “Charted: There Are More Mobile Phones than People in the World,” weforum.org, Apr. 11, 2023