From 2006 to 2014 the EPA website on wireless technology text stated:

“Wireless technology is still relatively new, and world-wide, researchers continue to study the effects of long-term exposure. To date, the scientific evidence linking long-term use of cell phones to cancer or other health effects is not conclusive. More research is needed to clarify the question of safety. “ 

See the  2006 to 2014 EPA website here.  

See PDF of the 2006 though 2014 EPA Website on wireless Radiation here

Then from 2014 to 2019 the EPA Webpage was changed to say…..

“Some people are concerned about potential health effects, especially on the developing brains and bodies of children. Some studies suggest that heavy long-term use of cellphones could have health effects. Other studies don’t find any health effects from cellphone use. Long-term studies on animals exposed to the RF found in wireless networks (Wi-Fi) have, so far, found no health effects. Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF.” 

“Scientists continue to study the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of RF. If you are concerned, you can take these simple steps to reduce exposure to RF radiation:

  • Limit use – Reduce the number and length of your calls or time spent on a wireless device.
  • Use hands-free devices – Using hands-free devices keeps mobile phones away from your head.Increase distance between the wireless device and your body.’

Then in 2019, the EPA website pages were completely redone and the end result is a complete whitewash. A downplaying of all health issues. There is no mention of the National Toxicology Program study nor the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer classification of radiofrequency as a Class 2B carcinogen. 

Instead all the post 2019 EPA webpages refer to the FCC, the Industry tied EMF Project of the WHO and outdated resoureces from industry consultants. 


New EPA Website pages updated in 2019.  


EHT  wrote a letter in April 2020 asking the following questions: 

1.Why doesn’t the EPA clarify on their website that they have not done a review of the health or environmental impacts? 

2.Why doesn’t the EPA clarify that the current FCC regulations are not based on a review of impacts to birds, bees and trees? This seems to be quite important clarification  as FCC limits are not applicable to wildlife, birds,  bees and trees? 

See the page missing this which does not mention this

3.Why doesn’t the  EPA websites  link to the  National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences website and to the National Toxicology Program webpage on cell phone radiation, both of which host information on the cell phone radiation  studies?    Does the EPA not link to these websites for a reason?

As you are aware, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) released their final reports on their $30 million animal study on long-term exposure to wireless radiofrequency electromagnetic (RF-EMF) radiation. They found “clear evidence of carcinogenicity due to the increased malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats. In addition, the study found statistically significant increases in DNA damage, heart damage, malignant glioma tumors of the brain. The NTP was nominated to perform these carefully controlled large scale animal studies to provide information on health effects from long term exposures. All exposures were at non heating, non thermal levels and yet increased tumors were found, thus the NTP studies provide documentation of a carcinogenic effect at non thermal levels. Similarly, studies by the Ramazzini Institute of RF-EMF at levels below FCC limits found increases in malignant schwannomas of the heart in exposed rats, corroborating the NTP results (Falcioni, 2018).

Importantly, these animal study findings corroborate published case-control studies in humans which found increases in tumors of the same types—schwannomas and gliomas in people who use cell phones. Several scientists have concluded that there is now sufficient evidence to classify RF-EMF as a human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017,  Miller et al., 2018). In addition,  a recently published study that finds the ANFR cell phone tests of the French government indicate cell phone radiation can exceed limits up to 11 times when tested in accordance with FCC standards in positions mimicking a phone touching the body. Two published research reviews are calling for caution with 5G as  it is “a new form of environmental pollution” which “will contribute to a negative public health outcome” (Di Ciaula 2018, Russell 2018).

  1. Why does the EPA website link to the FCC which has no health experts on staff? The FCC limits are not designed to protect trees, birds or bees? These are not federally developed limits.
  1. Why does the EPA website link to a non US governmental industry loyal group that hosts information by industry consultants- the  Health Physics Society?  Is it the policy of the  US EPA to rely on this organization for scientific opinion?
MORE INFO HERE  GBM Brain Tumor Cancer Rising. Impacts of RF Radiation from Wireless Devices? – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Is the EPA aware that the Health Physics Society factsheet posted on their site  is from 2010? Why did the EPA choose this factsheet to reference?

The EPA page  directly links to an  outdated factsheet written by an individual known to be an industry consultant. Review his papers to see that he has repeatedly written papers funded by wireless companies. Perhaps most importantly, this is a well outdated page so I am interested as to how it was chosen.

  1. Why does the EPA not mention that in addition to cancer, ELF EMF is linked to other endpoints such as ADHD, asthma and  obesity.
  1. Why are references to the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer classification of radiofrequency as a Class 2B carcinogen omitted from the new EPA webpages?

Both magnetic field (2002) and radiofrequency radiation (2011) were classified, as a Group 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Since that date, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence has significantly increased, clearly showing these types of electromagnetic radiation have adverse effects at emissions levels governments currently allow

  1. What is the process by which the EPA is developing their website information? Which scientists are reviewing information and making determinations for the webpages?


  1. Why does the EPA website have inaccurate information?

Lastly, the EPA website text itself  has inaccurate information. For example it states that  there are not replication studies showing harm when in fact there are replication studies such as a study out of Jacobs University that found a tumor promotion effect Lerchl 2015 and  the study out of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute that found memory impairments in teenagers (Foerster 2018). Equally important, the webpage on powerlines was edited to now state that the research has not been repeated when in fact the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia has been repeatedly replicated, so much so that several countries limit new buildings on area with magnetic fields over 3 to 4 milligauss and/or within 50 feet of high voltage power lines.

Appendix I: Documentation of inaccurate and misleading information on the EPA website

False/Misleading  #1 “ While some studies have shown a correlation between the occurrence of certain adverse health effects and long-term use, a definitive cause and effect relationship has not been established.”   (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)

Fact: The US National Toxicology Program studies on radiofrequency radiation found increased cancers and their conclusions in regards to the confidence of the association were as follows:

  • Malignant schwannoma in the heart in male rats “clear evidence”
  • Malignant glioma in the brain in in male rats  “some evidence”
  • Tumors in the adrenal medulla of male rats GSM “some evidence”
  • Additional findings in rats  include: Low birth weight, Cardiomyopathy in the right ventricle in both male and female groups, DNA damage found in specific tissues including the brain.
MORE INFO HERE  5G: The Unreported Global Threat by Devra Davis PhD, MPH (Medium Article)

False/Misleading statement #2 “Most studies haven’t found any health effects from cell phone use.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)

This statement is made based on no references. In fact, several reviews have found that the majority of research studies have found an effect. For example,

Priyanka Bandara, David O Carpenter, Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact, The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 2, Issue 12, 2018, Pages e512-e514,ISSN 2542-5196,

  • A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.

Cucurachi, C., et al. “A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).” Environment International, vol. 51, 2013, pp. 116–40.

  • A Review of 113 studies from original peer-reviewed publications. RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies. Development and reproduction of birds and insects are the most strongly affected endpoints.

Yakymenko, Igor, et al. “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, vol. 35, no. 2, 2016, pp. 186-202.

  • “Among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems….In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity RFR is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”

Anthony B. Miller, L. Lloyd Morgan, Iris Udasin and Devra Lee Davis. “Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC Evaluation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Monograph 102)”  Environmental Research, September 6, 2018.

  • Literature review: Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).

Pall M., Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health, Environmental Research Volume 164, July 2018, Pages 405-416

  • (Review paper) “Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload.

There are more studies found in the attached list. 

False/Misleading statement #3 “A few studies have connected RF and health effects, but scientists have not been able to repeat the outcomes. This means that they are inconclusive.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)

“Few” is an inaccurate description of the amount of studies showing adverse effects. 

First, the adjective “few” to describe studies is inaccurate as shown by the research cited earlier such as  Bandara 2018  published in The Lancet which states, “A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.”


Second, there are  replication studies with radiofrequency radiation and with other non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation frequencies   that have found adverse effects.

Please see these examples:

  1. (Foerster 2018) A prospective cohort study of adolescents’ memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication published in Environmental Health Perspectives. This study was a follow up (doubling sample size) and confirms prior results from 2015 study  and found higher cumulative RF-EMF brain exposure from mobile phone use over one year was associated with figural memory performance in adolescents.
  2. (Lerchl  et al. 2015) “Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans.” published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications was a replication study which states, “We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels. We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure…Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.”
  3. (Divan 2012) Divan, H.A, et al. “Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.”Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 66, no. 6, 2012, pp. 524-9.  Replicated the 2008 study by Divan, H.A., et al. “Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children.”Epidemiology, vol. 19, no. 4, 2008, pp. 523-9. The  2012 publication states,  “Conclusion: The findings of the previous publication were replicated in this separate group of participants demonstrating that cell phone use was associated with behavioural problems at age 7 years in children, and this association was not limited to early users of the technology.” It is notable that additional research has also found adverse impacts from prenatal exposure. In 2017, (Birks 2017)  the largest study to date to use data on prenatal cell phone use collected from parents in five countries found a link between high prenatal cell phone use and hyperactivity/inattention problems in children.
  4. (Li 2017) Li, De-Kun, et al., “Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study”, Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 17541 (2017) In 2017, Dr. De Kun Li and his team at Kaiser made international news when they published their  second study linking miscarriage to real world non ionizing radiation electromagnetic exposures. Funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with 913 women as subjects, Li , who specializes  in reproductive and prenatal epidemiology, found that women who were exposed to higher electromagnetic field levels had 2.72 times – an almost 3 times increased -risk of miscarriage. “This study provides evidence from a human population that magnetic field non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health,” Li said in the Kaiser Permanente press release.   A note: Dr. Li’s research also has found other effects from higher exposures to pregnant women including higher risks for ADHD,  asthma and  obesity.
MORE INFO HERE  Choosing Good We Have Made the Gambling Free Source: Environmental Health Trust