Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices

Front Public Health · 2019 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 1711

Study snapshot

PublicationFront Public Health · 2019

Study typereview

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices Miller AB, Sears ME, Morgan LL, Davis DL, Hardell L, Oremus M and Soskolne CL (2019) Risks to health and well- being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Front. Public Health 7:223. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223. Abstract Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a "possible" (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull's bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR. Open access paper: frontiersin.org

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionharm

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 89% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

This review states that a broad range of adverse human health effects associated with radio-frequency radiation have been reported, including evidence relevant to carcinogenicity and sperm damage. It highlights rodent carcinogenicity studies showing increased Schwannomas, malignant gliomas, and chromosomal DNA damage, and cites experimental and observational findings linking cell phone exposure to impaired sperm parameters.

Outcomes measured

carcinogenicity
Schwannomas
malignant gliomas
chromosomal DNA damage
developing brain exposure in children
sperm count
sperm motility
sperm morphology
mitochondrial DNA damage

Limitations

Narrative review; methods for study identification and appraisal are not described in the abstract.
No quantitative pooled estimates are reported in the abstract.
Population characteristics and sample sizes are not provided in the abstract.
Findings summarize multiple study types, including animal and observational evidence.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "carcinogenicity",
    "Schwannomas",
    "malignant gliomas",
    "chromosomal DNA damage",
    "developing brain exposure in children",
    "sperm count",
    "sperm motility",
    "sperm morphology",
    "mitochondrial DNA damage"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This review states that a broad range of adverse human health effects associated with radio-frequency radiation have been reported, including evidence relevant to carcinogenicity and sperm damage. It highlights rodent carcinogenicity studies showing increased Schwannomas, malignant gliomas, and chromosomal DNA damage, and cites experimental and observational findings linking cell phone exposure to impaired sperm parameters.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Narrative review; methods for study identification and appraisal are not described in the abstract.",
    "No quantitative pooled estimates are reported in the abstract.",
    "Population characteristics and sample sizes are not provided in the abstract.",
    "Findings summarize multiple study types, including animal and observational evidence."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.89,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radio-frequency radiation",
    "RFR",
    "cell phones",
    "wireless devices",
    "carcinogenicity",
    "glioma",
    "Schwannoma",
    "DNA damage",
    "children",
    "sperm damage",
    "male fertility",
    "IARC",
    "WHO"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "The abstract discusses IARC classification and recommends WHO review of RFR health effects."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library