What does the emerging science tell us about radiofrequency exposure and primary age children?
17th August 2026
DID YOU KNOW?
New research finds higher levels of a biomarker of chromosomal damage in primary age children attending schools closer to mobile phone base stations.
RIGHT TO KNOW
This article is written by the EM Radiation Research Trust and presents the Trust’s discussion of emerging research on radiofrequency exposure and children.
What are we entitled to know about wireless radiation?
On 24 July 2026, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation made an important statement about the right of consumers to receive information about potential health risks associated with mobile phone use. The case concerned an individual mobile phone, but the principle is broader: scientific uncertainty does not necessarily mean that relevant information should be withheld from the people who may be exposed. Clear information enables people to make informed choices.
That principle matters when new scientific findings emerge.
A recently published study by Chokeli et al. (2026) has reported an association between measured radiofrequency exposure and the frequency of micronuclei in buccal cells from primary school children attending schools at different distances from mobile phone base stations. The authors describe their findings as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The finding is sufficiently important to warrant attention, discussion and further investigation.
So, in the spirit of a genuine Right to Know, here is what the study found.
In our everyday lives, we are constantly exposed to a range of environmental agents that are known to be harmful to health. These agents can break strands of our DNA, as observed in damaged chromosomes made visible under the microscope during cell division. An example of chromosomal damage is the formation of micronuclei (MN). Micronuclei are small, extra-nuclear bodies present in the cytoplasm of a cell. Their presence serves as a biomarker of genomic instability induced by harmful environmental exposures and acts as a major warning sign of DNA damage, genomic instability, and possible carcinogenesis.
Figure 1. Photomicrograph showing Fast Green-stained mucosal cells with Micronuclei (MN) at ×40 magnification. Reproduced from figure 1 of Chokeli et al. (2019).
MN are strongly associated with ionising radiation, such as from our exposure to naturally occurring radon gas. MN are also associated with exposure to elevated levels of urban air pollutants in children living in high-traffic or heavily industrialized urban environments (Ceretti et al. 2020). Chokeli et al. 2026 have recently reported the results of a study of MN among 200 primary school children in eight schools located at varying distances up to 500 metres from mobile phone base stations (MPBS). The number of MN present was assayed in buccal (cheek) cells taken from each child in the form of a simple mouth swab.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework illustrating the hypothesized association between RF radiation from MPBS, school distance and exposure gradient, and MN frequency in buccal cells of children. This figure represents the study hypothesis and does not imply causation. Source: Chokeli et al. (2026), Scientific Reports.
From an environmental health and management perspective, these results highlight the importance of integrating RF exposure considerations into urban planning, zoning policy, and risk governance. Precautionary siting strategies, such as maintaining appropriate buffer distance between MPBS and sensitive land uses like schools, may represent prudent approach to manage long-term uncertainty (Chokeli et al., 2026)
Exploratory analyses showed that radio frequency (RF) radiation levels were inversely correlated with distance from MPBS, while MN frequency was positively correlated with measured RF levels. In other words, the closer the child was to a MPBS while attending school, the higher the number of micronuclei in their cheek cells.
When account was taken of additional sources of RF radiation, such as WiFi sources in the home, the same result of an association with proximity to MPBS remained. Similarly, no schools were located near major industrial facilities, incinerators, or landfills or directly adjacent highways with heavy traffic.
Chokeli et al. 2026, summarise their findings in Table 4 of their paper. All measured RF radiation levels were below current international public exposure guidelines. The average number of micronuclei counts per 1,000 cells (chromosomal damage) were 2.31 ± 0.08 for children exposed 0–100 metres from a MPBS compared with 1.24 ± 0.06, 300–400 metres away. Even after allowing for a number of possible co-factors, these results remained highly significant (P<0.001). They represent a doubling of micronuclei frequency compared with the levels found from other environmental sources put together.
Chokeli et al. 2026, conclude that their findings suggest that variation in ambient RF exposure in school environments may be associated with micronuclei frequency in children. Their results should be taken as a working hypothesis that needs urgent further investigation.
So, what are we to make of these findings?
1. This is the second study in children near mobile phone base stations (See Chokeli et al. 2019). The authors emphasise the results should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating.
Clearly more studies of this kind are needed.
2. Nevertheless, the findings show an association between RF radiation exposure and micronuclei as a marker of genomic instability, GI.
RF radiation (RF EMFs) have already been shown to engender GI in cells (for example, Luukkonen et al. 2014). The present results provide further evidence that in this regard, RF EMFs behave like ionising radiation and other known harmful agents.
3. All measured RF radiation levels were many thousands of times well below current international public exposure guidelines, notably from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP).
4. The size of the increased MN frequency in children at primary schools close to MPBS, compared with further away, suggests that the effects of RF Radiation were comparable with the total of what is seen in children in terms of their base levels of MN in bucca (mouth) cells.
We have cited Cerretti et al. 2020. This is the result of the European Union MAPEC_LIFE cohort study on air pollution and chromosomal damage in children. The abstract concludes:
“Some air pollutants are able to induce chromosomal damage in buccal cells of children even a concentrations below present EU/WHO limits. This type of biological effects may be indicative of the environmental pressure which populations are exposed to in urban areas.”
Conclusions:
We have known about the effects of air pollution since the 1950s, and in relation to diesel cars since the mid-1990s. We also know of numerous places in the UK and Europe where exposure levels exceed WHO limits.
Given that Chokeli et al. have found an increased MN frequency in children associated with RF radiation exposure below ICNIRP limits, why are we not allowed to know more about this and discuss the potential implications openly?
If biological effects can occur at levels of air pollution below EU and WHO limits, as Cerretti et al. report, surely the finding of increased MN frequency at RF exposure levels below ICNIRP limits also deserves to be openly examined and discussed.
The Right to Know
The purpose of a Right to Know campaign is to ensure that people are able to see the evidence for themselves. A genuine right to know means having access to the evidence.
No one wants to discover years from now that a reported risk was minimised because the evidence was inconvenient, uncertain or politically difficult.
And no one wants to find themselves in the position described by Chris Woollams, one of the endorsers of the report Cellphone and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern:
“In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we can use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad. I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumour.”
Chris Woollams M.A. Biochemistry (Oxon). Editor Integrated Cancer and Oncology News (icon magazine). CEO CANCERactive.
If you found this information useful, please follow Radiation Research Trust for evidence-based research, scientific updates, and the latest news on wireless radiation, health and technology. Every new follower helps us reach more people, expand our network, and strengthen our voice on this urgent issue. Thank you all for your incredible support.
References
Chokeli R, Yuswir NS, Ho YB, Chaing H-L, How V. 2026. Environmental radiofrequency exposure and genotoxic biomarkers in schoolchildren: a cross-sectional analysis. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-60822-1
Zothansiama, Mary Zosangzuali, Miriam Lalramdinpuii & Ganesh Chandra Jagetia (2017) Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36:3, 295-305, DOI: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584 https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584
Gulati S, Mosgoeller W, Moldan D, Kosik P, Durdik M, Jakl L, Skorvaga M, Markova E, Kochanova D, Kigasova K, Belyvaev I. 2024. Evaluation of oxidative stress and genetic instability among residents near mobile phone base stations in Germany. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 279:116486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116486
Ceretti, E., Donato, F., Zani, C. et al. 2020. Results from the European Union MAPEC_LIFE cohort study on air pollution and chromosomal damage in children: are public health policies sufficiently protective? Environ Sci Eur 32, 74 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00352-3
Weller SG, McCredden JE, Leach V, Chu C, Lam AK. 2025. A scoping review and evidence map of radio-frequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front. Public Health 13:1613353. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353
Belyaev I, Gulati S, Mosgoeller W, Moldan D. 2026. Response to the BfS Statement: Scientific Clarifications on Chromosomal Damage and RF-EMF Exposure. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 322 (2026) 120336. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651326006652?via%3Dihub
Luukkonen J, Liimatainen A, Juutilainen J, Naarala J. 2014. Induction of genomic instability, oxidative processes, and mitochondrial activity by 50Hz magnetic fields in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. Mutat Res. 2014 Feb;760:33–41. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2013.12.002 Chokeli R, et al. 2019. The Chromosomal DNA Damage in Buccal Mucosa Cells among Schools Children in The Vicinity Of Mobile Base Stations in Selangor. Mal J Med Health Sci 15(SP4): 124-129, Dec 2019.
