What You Should Know about Wireless Radiation: Health Impacts on Babies and Children

Wireless radiation is just one form of electromagnetic fields (or EMFs).

These are invisible waves of energy emitted by electronic devices like WiFi routers, cell phones, and baby monitors.

You can’t see them, but these EMFs are how your iPad and all mobile devices connects to the cell tower.

You cannot sense these as with other pollution such as smog, noise pollution, but your body is definitely sensitive to these fields.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to wireless radiation.

Children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation and cell phone radiation because they have smaller heads, they have thinner skulls, and they have developing brains. Research shows that children absorb higher levels of wireless radiation.

Wherever you are using your wireless device, this radiation is being absorbed into your body, quite intensely, whenever it’s nearby. So, if it’s in your head, you’re going to get high levels of absorption of the non-ionizing radiation into your head and brain. If it’s near the abdomen and you’re pregnant, your body will receive that radiation as will your developing baby.

Wireless radiation is linked to a wide range of symptoms.

Before it even becomes an acute disease, Some studies of people living near cell towers have also confirmed an array of health complaints, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, tinnitus and insomnia, from people identified as having "electromagnetic hypersensitivity."

Wireless radiation is considered a carcinogen.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, cited troubling but uncertain evidence in classifying wireless radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

In 2018, a study by the federal government that was nearly two decades in the making found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. A major study in Italy produced similar results.

The main reason for this new classification was its linked to gliomas.

Cellphone radiation was classified a “possible carcinogen” in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.

Gliomas are the most common CNS tumors in children and adolescents; it is usually a fast-growing cancer that affects your child's brain or spinal cord.

Leukaemia and brain cancer are BOTH among the top five most common childhood cancers in most countries that track such statistics, from Singapore, Malaysia in the tropics to the UK, across Europe.

In fact, leukaemia and brain cancer account for more than half of all childhood cancers. Check out the population statistics in countries such as the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia. By contrast, these cancers are rare in adults.

While these childhood cancers are rare and have high overall survival, it remains the first cause of death from

disease in children and adolescents. Can you imagine what the leading factor to such cancers are?

They’ve been concerned for a long time.

“They” being the many official institutions. For example, before the WHO’s 2011 official declaration, between 2008 and 2011, the European Union Parliament and the Council of Europe passed multiple resolutions against the “early, ill-considered, and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves.”

The European parliaments’ advice for an exposure level was called A.L.A.R.A. (as low as reasonably achievable). (How low is still up to you to achieve as there are no standard regulations.)

Many medical associations in North America and Europe have also issued public statements to warn about the serious health risks associated with using wireless devices. Among them, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote:

Wireless radiation is linked to autism and spectrum disorders.

A majority of studies that have looked at something called oxidative stress have found an effect. Now oxidative stress can lead to inflammation and more inflammation can lead to a lot of other health implications.

Dr. Martha Herbert documented in her publications, looking at autism and ADHD, there is inflammation in the brain. With electromagnetic fields, there are studies showing inflammation as well.

Many clinicians, doctors, and health professionals have found reducing electromagnetic fields can help with kids who have behavioral problems or have autism and other health issues. It’s been a way to impact or reduce electromagnetic fields that can support the child’s resilience.

Wireless radiation can cause behavioural problems in children.

If you are pregnant and exposed to cellphone radiation, your baby could be born susceptible to behavioural issues. A Yale study in 2012 found hyperactivity and reduced memory in mice exposed to cellphone radiation in the womb, consistent with human epidemiological research showing a rise in behavioral disorders among children who were exposed to cellphones in the womb.

The researchers exposed the pregnant mice to radiation from a muted and silenced cell phone positioned above the cage and placed on an active phone call for the duration of the trial. A control group of mice was kept under the same conditions but with the phone deactivated (such as being on “airplane mode”).

After the mice were born, researchers conducted psychological and behavioral tests, as well as measured their brain electrical activity.

“We have shown that behavioral problems in mice that resemble ADHD are caused by cell phone exposure in the womb. The evidence is really, really strong now that there is a causal relationship between cellphone radiation exposure and behavior issues in children. — Dr. Hugh Taylor, the author of the mouse study and chair of the obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences department at the Yale School of Medicine”

Concerned scientists are advocating for education around possible harms of wireless tech and how it should be used with care around children.

The BabySafe Project was conceived jointly by Dr. Devra Davis of Environmental Health Trust and Patti and Doug Wood of Grassroots Environmental Education after attending a conference in Stonington, Connecticut — it was where Dr. Hugh Taylor of Yale School of Medicine presented the results of his important study on fetal exposures to cell phone radiation. https://www.babysafeproject.org/science

Your child may already be suffering from EMF

A case in Canada saw three young children with an environmental intolerance, medically known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). They regularly suffered with symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, concentration and memory problems, anxiety, abdominal pain, nosebleeds, ringing in the ears, and more. These symptoms were otherwise unexplainable.

In May of 2012, to accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools.

EMFs health impacts begin pre-conception.

Higher levels of exposure could reduce sperm quality in men and increase miscarriage risk in women. The two miscarriage studies, conducted by Kaiser Permanente and funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, are particularly interesting because they're some of the only ones to date that actually measured EMF exposure in subjects using a magnetic field monitoring device.

"We took [913 pregnant women] and asked them to wear the monitor for the duration of their pregnancy. Studies right now aren't using the meters because most of them are focusing on cancer. Cancer can take 20 years to develop—you can't measure your exposure from 20 years ago, so in those cases, you just ask how much the person uses their cell phone." — reproductive epidemiologist De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, the principle investigator on both studies (one published in 2002, one published in 2017).

Any safety regulations is out of date.

Any safety data is so out of date, it is not even funny.

No standards even consider the impact to a pregnant woman, as that research didn’t exist 25 years ago.

For example, the US Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, based on an adult male and they don’t even consider a child’s developing brain. They last adjusted its woefully outdated health standards for wireless radiation a quarter-century ago, well before wireless devices became ubiquitous, heavily used appliances synonymous with modern life.

5G wireless radiation is a new beast.

Until now, most of us use the second-, third-, and fourth-generation cell phones (2G, 3G, 4G) that emit radiofrequency in the frequency range of 0.7-2.7 GHz.

Fifth-generation (5G) cell phones are anticipated to use the frequency spectrum up to 80 GHz.

That’s an astounding leap!

I hope this compilation of research and studies will help you make a more informed decision about Wifi and its use in your family.

Resources & recommendations

• https://www.babysafeproject.org/science

• Read the study of real-world exposure to non-ionizing radiation from magnetic fields in pregnant women found a significantly higher rate of miscarriage (December 13, 2017)

• Your quick guide to reducing exposure at home

• Is your child already experiencing exposure to EMFs? Check out 12 common symptoms that you may not know about.

• Get in touch for a free discovery call on how to kick wireless radiation exposure out of your house.

How Safety Standards for Cellphone Severely Neglects Human Biology

Do you know what levels of wireless radiation your phone has to emit to be considered lethal, or at least cause burns?

Sam the Military Man and Microwave Radiation

Let me tell you a story about SAM.

SAM is the specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM) meant to represent the standard human head.

But SAM was created in 1989 and he was not made to be average.

He was made to be a representative of the very top 10 percent of army recruits in the US military.

As microwave radiation as a military weapon progressed throughout 1970s and 80s, the military wanted a model to test the effects of microwave radiation on humans that they were observing in real life. So SAM was to be the test mannequin to see how much microwave radiation a body could absorb while making a cell phone call.

SAM became the standard for the specific absorption rate (or SAR) for cellphone radiation in humans.

The Problem with SAM

But some people began to point out that testing mobile phones on a plastic dummy isn't the same as in human body.

For one, the ear of a plastic dummy is not like a human ear of cartilage -- in fact, it is highly absorbant liquid.

SAM’s head size only represents roughly 2% of the human population and 0% of children.

Furthermore, the measurement, ‘SAR’ is still only based on thermal-induced effects (i.e., heating effects) and therefore disregards numerous health hazards, such as the effects on the blood brain barrier (BBB), neurotransmitters and autophagy which have all been well documented.

How do you use your phone? Against your ear?

Where do you actually keep it when you’re out all day — against your hip bone in your pocket? Or tucked in a bra? It goes on and on…

In fact, the phones themselves violate the SAR standard!

SAM was used to test early phone models. The outcome of those early proceedings was that a person cannot absorb more than 1.6 watts of energy per kilogram of body weight.

By now phones are on the 4G of wireless technology.

We Are Not SAM

Now, meet the man whose research inspired the SAM campaign. Professor Om P. Gandhi, Emeritus Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering with the University of Utah, taught courses on biological effects of antennas, RF and microwave electromagnetic fields for over 50 years.

A world expert on how mobile phone radiation penetrates the human brain, Prof Ghandhi was once a consultant to major cell phone companies.

In March 2012, his study was published in the journal Electromagnetic Biological Medicine, it shared how The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model and MRI scans of children between 5 and 8 years of age.

He wrote:

"It was found approximately 2 times higher SAR in children compared to adults. When electrical properties are considered, a child’s head’s absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults."

“It is a fact that humans of all sizes and ages from children to older individuals are using cell phones, and testing for compliance testing for a 220 lb., 6 feet 2 inch tall adult male underestimates the actual energy absorbed by up to a factor of two, thus releasing into the market telephones that would not pass if a proper safety compliance testing method was used.”

He realised these findings were being manipulated...and how the SAM testing standard were an abuse of the SAR ratings.

Prof Gandhi became deeply disillusioned at the unconscionable lack of industry regulation and zero liability of cell tower companies and cell phone makers on human health.  Gandhi refused to work with them any longer.

SAM and SAR Cannot Tell You How Much Radiation You Absorb

The highest SAR was set relative to the heat produced by RF radiation.

Worse, the highest SAR is set well below the level of radiation that would endanger a user’s health.

Prof Ghandi embarked on a mission with other scientists and concerned advocates to share this knowledge. This work sparked the WE ARE NOT SAM movement.

We Are Not SAM movement is not based on opinion - it's backed by thousands of scientific studies and the leading independent scientists from around the world have a lot to say about this testing dummy called SAM.

The SAR specification on a phone can only tell you the highest measurement taken for each frequency reached by the device, and not how much radiation you absorb.

So now you know, there is zero biological science behind mobile phone safety testing. You are exposing yourself regularly to harmful levels of wireless radiation every time you use a wireless device. It is now in your hands to share about this knowledge and protect yourself and your loved ones.

https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

References and Notes:

• https://www.instagram.com/wearenotsam/

• You can read Prof Gandhi’s paper here. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. Epub 2011 Oct 14. PMID: 21999884.

• Prof Gandhi was a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering in 1997. He was the Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Utah, from 1992 to 1999, the President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society from 1992 to 1993, the Co-Chairman of the IEEE SCC 28. IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards from 1988 to 1997, and the Chairman of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation from 1980 to 1982.

What is YOUR standard against wireless radiation?

In the digital era of the 21st century, we are not exposed to one Wi-Fi transmitter antenna. One typical office place or school classroom might have dozens of radiation streams from dozens of transmitting antennas: 30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.

You enter a mall and you’re exposed to multiple sources of wireless devices and antennas around you.

Do I Need to Worry About Radiation From WiFi and Bluetooth Devices?

Here’s what is known about the potential risk from routers and wireless devices

As of 2011, radiofrequency (RF) radiation is classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO.

There is a large number of studies establishing a concern that exposure to even low level electromagnetic fields causes adverse health effects. Studies showing possible health effects, that are corroborated as more research is done.

In 2018, the US National Toxicology Program embarked on an ambitious a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents. It provided evidence that wireless radiation can cause cancer—but the abrupt termination of the study left a lot of key questions unanswered.

Professor James Lin from the University of Illinois in Chicago discussed the US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) decision to close its radiation research program and what that means for us all.

‘In 2018, NTP published the final report on its US$30 million laboratory research showing “clear evidence” that lifelong exposure to low-level RF radiation caused cancers in rats.

‘The statistically significant findings showed that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated 900-MHz RF radiation had led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor in the hearts of male rats. Furthermore, an independent analysis of the NTP data for overall cancer incidence detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA cellphone RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor incidence than the concurrent controls.’

Just recently, in 2023, the NTP declared on its 2023 fact sheet that it would perform follow-up studies on the effects found in the long term animal studies. 

So what happened? 

Have the follow-up studies been completed already?

Working with Swiss national engineering and U.S. government experts, the NTP had devised small-scale systems for exposing animals experimentally to controlled levels of wireless radiation.

Yet results from these exposure systems have neither been publicly shared nor published.

You can learn more about the NTP cellphone study in another post.

What Are the Existing Standards on Wireless Digital Technology (Radiofrequency Radiation)?

There Are No Safety Standards.

There are no national or international bodies who have “standards” for safe levels of the radiation emitted by wireless or microwave devices.

It is important to know that different countries have different standards and approaches to the current thermal (heat) RF exposure standards. The biologically toxic (oxidative/membrane) RF exposure levels, shown to produce harm at non-thermal levels.

This is an alarming concern as many countries rush towards 5G (i.e., device to device in the Internet of Things).[2]

So we are clear that nobody is watching out on your behalf:

Any “safety standard” by the telecommunications industry and the Big Tech sector, related industry associations, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are focused exclusively on thermal effects ONLY.

This means “standards” are pushed to whether you get literally burnt or fried. Any non-thermal biological effects are either ignored or denied.

Different Countries Have Different Exposure Standards

However, in just the last 20 years, more than 20 position papers and resolutions regarding EMF and health have been adopted by esteemed EMF researchers and physicians.

Building Biology Standards

Standards for EMF exposure in Building Biology is based on the precautionary principle and lowest biological harm for sleeping areas. It is informed by reports by the BioInitiative Working Group. In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of 29 experts with different competences, published two groundbreaking reports “BioInitiative 2007/resp. 2012 – A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)” edited by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, calling for preventive measures against EMF exposure based on the available scientific evidence.

The BioInitiative report 2012 includes sections on the evidence for effects on: gene and protein expression, DNA, immune function, neurology and behavior, blood-brain barrier, brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, melatonin, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, fertility and reproduction, fetal and neonatal disorders, autism.

Now let’s have a look at some of these new actions:

In Europe, the EU in its Council Recommendation of 1999 adopted the ICNIRP recommendations. However, this does not consider long-term non-thermal effects. It also does not consider non-thermal bio effects.

Many individual EU countries are choosing stricter regulations against wireless radiation levels.

Austria

has one of the strictest standards. Since 2007, the Highest Health Council of the Ministry of Health in Austria has recommended to take preventive action by reducing exposure levels from RF devices of at least a factor of 100 below the guideline levels of the European Commission!

South Korea

In Korea, you will find many websites for public and nonpublic institutions that provide information aiming to improve public awareness and EMF knowledge [19-22]. This information includes large amounts of data on human limitation levels, EMF measurements of electronic products, base station information, general safety guidelines, and false beliefs.

France

The first low-EMF zone was established at Drôme, France in July 2009.[10]

After two long years of debate, on January 29th 2015, France adopted a law which limits the spread of WiFi radiation and establishes basic rules of precautionary principle related to health risks from radio frequency waves.

It also promises a fine of 75 000 Euros if any cell phone advertisement fails to mention recommended use of EMF protection products.

On 8 July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting restrictions on access to employment.[9]

Italy

The Italian Supreme Court confirmed a previous decision by the Civil Court of Appeals of Brescia (no. 614 of 10 December 2009) that ruled that the National Institute for Workmen’s Compensation (INAIL) must compensate a worker who had developed a tumor in the head due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones while on the job.[11]

Russia

Russia set strict standards and has not loosened these. In contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines, the Russian safety standards, are based on non-thermal RF effects, which were obtained by several research institutes in the former Soviet Union during decades of studies on chronic exposures to RF. It is interesting to find that Russian researchers  looked at RFR exposures and immune dysfunction over 2 decades ago and because of these robust studies which were replicated in 2006-2009 they set their upper limit of RFR at 10 μW/cm2.

Canada

EMF Exposure Guidelines in Canada are under the jurisdiction of Health Canada who has not independently established guidelines for magnetic field or electric field exposure. When pressed, they will state that Canada follows the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “ICNIRP” guidelines of 830 mG or 83,000 nT (Magnetic Field) or 5000 V/m (Electric Field) for a 24-hr period. Since these guidelines are based on short-term acute exposure we still do not have guidelines that protect the public from long-term low level exposure.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation (which represents over 200,000 teachers across Canada (2013)) recommends “prudent use of Wi-Fi” whenever possible including the recommendation to limit consistent exposure in schools by turning off wireless access points when not in use.

The Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario - over 76,000 teachers (2013) adopted resolutions:
 "That ETFO study the impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including the possible implications for schools and members, with a report with recommendations.

The British Columbia Teachers' Federation (41,000 public school teachers (2013) adopted resolution to protect teachers' health: "The BCTF supports members who are suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity by ensuring that their medical needs are accommodated in the workplace."

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association - 37,000 teachers (2012) recommends pulling plug on Wi-Fi in schools, schools should practice “prudent avoidance of exposure” given the mounting evidence against WiFi exposure especially on children.

May of 2012: To accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools, and for a minimum of one school in each district at each level to be free of Wi-Fi.

What Are Your Personal Standards against Wireless Radiation?

• How often do you use WIFI hot spots? Regular surveys often find many places where the level of public exposure substantially succeeds that generally observed at the national scale.

  While, say the National Frequency Agency (AFNR) in France in this moment considers a hotspot to be atypical if the levels of radiation exceed 6 V/m (9.5 µW/cm2). It is not uncommon that WiFi radiation on hotspot peaks above 10 V/m. It takes time for network operators, often some months, before an excessive hotspot is recalibrated.

• Do you set clear boundaries against wireless radiation in your home?

  From nurseries and daycare centers are common places that ban wireless devices; this is where very small children under 3 yrs spend their time. Do you permit wireless devices for “digital educational activities” and “lifestyle and entertainment”? Otherwise, wireless access to internet can be disabled, eliminating one common source of high levels of wireless radiation.

• Are you aware of the EMF-spreading installation (antennas, towers etc)?

  Any such installation typically has to first approved by local government, because it may breach location rules, if indeed the area has any. Installers typically must submit necessary documentation about EM fields it will create and emit. This information may not be available to the public, however. In fact, the entire process may be obscured. This means it is up to you, the individual, to be able to detect, measure, and mitigate against EMFs in your environment.

• Do you use EMF protection? And are you regularly up to date on the various types of EMF product quality? For example, the most common products promise they reduce exposure of the head to wireless radiation from mobile device.

• If you have children, do you consider their more vulnerable needs? EMF protection products for kids consider their lower body weight to mass ratio.

Are you concerned about the levels of electromagnetic pollution in your home? Do you work with wireless devices? Check out my full guide to the regulations that institutions are enacting in response to citizens’ concern around the world.

For a full list of EMR exposure guidelines go here

References

• 1. http://www.safeinschool.org/

• 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. (2018) Martin L. Pall, PhD. Discusses SCENIHR and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection – ICNIRP, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Guidelines for RFR and robust scientific literature on adverse health effects which are both considered and not considered in their deliberations.   https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf

• 2. Oberfeld G. Precaution in Action – Global Public Health Advice Following BioInitiative 2007. In Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2012. Available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.

• 3. Havas M. International expert’s Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and ElectromagneticRadiation (EMR) [Internet]. Peterborough, ON, (CD): 2011 June

• 11 (updated 2014 July). Available at: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-ofelectromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/.

• x. https://ehtrust.org/singapore-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/; https://www.imda.gov.sg/user-and-set-up-guides/mobile-and-broadband/mobile-phone-base-stations-and-radiofrequency-radiation

• [9] Première reconnaissance d’un handicap dû à l’électrosensibilité en France. Le Monde fr avec AFP | 25.08.2015. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/08/25/premiere-reconnaissance-en-justice-d-unhandicap-u-a-l-electrosensibilite_4736299_3244.html.

• 10. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the Drome [Internet]. EURRE/Drome (FR): Agence France Presse (AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available at: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.

• 19. Seoul (Korea): EMF; c2005. Electromagnetic field (EMF) [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.emf.or.kr/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]

• Naju (Korea): Korea Electric Power Corporation; c2019. Korea Electric Power Corporation [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 10]. Available from: http://home.kepco.co.kr/kepco/KO/D/A/KODAPP001.do?menuCd=FN050401/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]