Wireless radiation Health Effects

🖨️ Print post

Wireless Exposures Must Be Reduced

There are signs that a serious evaluation is under­way, well overdue, to assess the roots of chronic illness. As a long-time health and environmental activist, this is music to my ears. It has long been obvi­ous that for health care to be sustainable, the industry must move out of a “symptom suppression” model of care and begin looking in earnest for the underlying sources of imbalance that cause biological dysregulation and disease. As the old adage says, “If we do not look, we cannot see.”

I am delighted to encounter more truth-telling about the innumerable ways in which modern society has enabled destructive pollution of all kinds to infiltrate the pristine beauty of the planet’s ecosystem and our bodies. In the process, this assault has disrupted the natural balance of communication throughout the natural world and limited our potential to thrive, both individually and as a species.

The government report titled Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment (“MAHA Report”)¹ lists many underlying factors driving growth in chronic illnesses, including diet, toxic materials, medical treatments, environmental factors and electromagnetic fields. Unfortu­nately, it won’t be easy to face off against deeply entrenched commercial interests to address them. Many corporations operate without a moral compass, focusing on short-term profits, stock prices and growth for growth’s sake, perhaps checking boxes in the name of being “green” but without concerning themselves with the intercon­nected whole of which we are privileged to be a part. There is no road map for raising consciousness and motivating society’s political and business leaders to transform whole industries and economic systems to be supportive of life.

There is a need to reimagine, redesign and recreate a world in which humans cooperate with Nature and flourish, rather than struggle with toxic environments. What is it about our culture that encourages us not to think of our bodies as interdependent living systems within the larger eco­system around us? What is it that fosters a narrow, materialistic and self-oriented worldview lacking appreciation for the critical responsibility—and opportunity—we have to nurture life? What if our culture were to radi­cally shift its orientation toward a commitment to making the health of biological systems our number-one priority throughout all sectors of the economy—including in the very harmful telecommunications (“telecom”) industry?

CHANGE IS NEEDED

For over fifteen years, my advocacy has focused on the ever-increasing wireless radia­tion pervading our lives. We desperately need to transform how we use these communication technologies as well as how they are delivered.

There are well-established ways to enjoy advanced communications more safely and responsibly than we do today. Hard-wired communications technologies such as fiber, cable and, for home-based electronics, Ethernet cables—all readily available today—are faster and more secure, resilient and energy-efficient. In addition, hard-wired technologies, unlike wireless technologies, do not cause biological dysregulation and disease. Except in cases where mobility is legiti­mately needed, such as with a cell phone, wireless access is an inferior technology, despite much hype.

Although hard-wired technologies are the better option, the telecom industry markets wireless technologies as if they were superior, claiming that each follow-on generation is “faster” and more desirable, without ex­plaining that wireless communication will never be as fast as hard-wired connections because it is a shared medium. We all enjoy the conveniences of mobility, but if we understood the biological science, most of us would not welcome wireless risks in our homes or neighborhoods.

DECADES OF RESEARCH

We are all subject to the wide­spread marketing of wireless tech­nologies, which persuades us that the technologies are a good thing. We assume that products like cell phones and wireless routers, or the cell towers in our neighborhoods, would never have been allowed on the market if the radiation they emit were harmful. Few of us un­derstand that no U.S. government entity has ever said that wireless radiation is safe.

Actually, decades of scientific research—amounting to thousands of studies, including large review studies by the U.S. government it­self—indicate that there are serious biological and health impacts to humans, animals and the ecosystem from exposure to wireless radiation. Way back in 1971, comprehensive government research from the Naval Medical Research Institute documented a wide range of wireless risks,² as did the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1976,³ NASA in 1972⁴ and 1981,⁵ the EPA in 1990,⁶ the U.S. Air Force in 1994⁷ and the Department of the Army in the mid-2000s.⁸ In an unusual move, one branch of the federal government (the Department of Interior) even criticized another federal department (the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce) in 2014,⁹ charging that the exposure guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commis­sion (FCC) are inadequate to protect wildlife. Scientists in dozens of other countries have documented wireless risks in many meta-analyses. Yet when the wireless communications revolution began in earnest in the 1990s, this long-standing body of research was overlooked entirely.

We should be asking why no action has been taken to limit wireless exposures. Wireless radiation continuously degrades our physiological functioning over time, including in less sensitive people who are unable to perceive the effects initially. “Boiling the frog slowly,” as the saying goes. How can it be that today, decades after government research showed a clear connection between radiofrequency radiation and biological harm, dozens of bills are before Congress seeking authorization for still more wireless? Bills seek to authorize more wireless spectrum (which will accelerate cell tower rollout); eliminate environmental reviews; approve funding allocated for high-speed broadband for wireless instead of for fiber; and gain approval for cell towers in national forests and national park recreation areas, despite the known fire risks. There is even a bill to allow antenna installation on any structure without consent.

Why, I wonder, does the federal government still subsidize the deployment of wireless infrastructure and services with taxpayer dol­lars, when the harms are well-established? Is Congress listening only to the telecom industry and being deceived about safety and sold a bill of goods?

RISING HEALTH RISKS

Seeing the writing on the wall, insurers have long refused to insure telecom service providers for health-related liabilities.¹⁰ Risk from elec­tromagnetic fields has been placed in the highest category of casualty risk,¹¹ and the 5G networks rolling out today have been called a high “off the leash” risk.¹² In the annual reports (Form 10-K) that the Securi­ties and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires from public companies, wireless service providers classify the radiation their transmitters emit as a “pollutant,” informing shareholders that they may incur significant financial losses due to the liability.

Wireless companies do not provide the consumers of these technolo­gies or the people living near cell towers with the same risk information available to insurers or the SEC. Despite the long-standing red flags about risks from wireless exposures, wireless communication technolo­gies continue to experience explosive and virtually unregulated growth, with over seven hundred billion dollars invested in network development to date.¹³ By 2023, wireless data traffic had grown to over one hundred trillion megabytes (MB).¹⁴ That same year, health care costs in the U.S. rose to almost five trillion dollars, up from one and one-half trillion dollars in 2000.¹⁵ Approximately 90 percent of health care costs today relate to chronic illness.

In February 2025, Richard Lear and I published a paper titled Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View.¹⁶ In it, we called attention to the 1971 U.S. Navy findings showing extensive biological and health effects from radiofrequency radiation—the same radiation emitted by to­day’s cell phones, wireless technologies and infrastructure—emphasizing that the U.S. government’s own research linked many of today’s fastest growing chronic illnesses to wireless radiation exposures long ago.¹⁷ In other words, the Navy’s report,² authored by Dr. Zory Glaser, PhD¹⁸ and titled Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency Radiation, forewarned about the wireless risks that have gone on to drive today’s chronic illness epidemic.

Dr. Glaser reviewed over two thousand studies published in the international scientific literature at the time and detailed the connection between wireless radiation and a wide range of biological and health effects. Because this oc­curred long before there was a consumer cell phone industry, the findings were derived from military and industrial research. Documented effects were body-wide and included central nervous system effects; genetic and chromo­somal changes; reduced fertility; blood clot­ting; gastrointestinal, vascular and metabolic disorders, including changes in blood glucose concentration; and much more.

Antenna infrastructure began rolling out across the U.S. in earnest in 1990. By 2015, twenty-three of the fastest-growing chronic diseases were conditions that Dr. Glaser had identified in 1971 as risks from radiofrequency radiation (see table on opposite page). Had regulators listened, we certainly wouldn’t have as large a chronic disease epidemic as we do today. Other factors certainly contribute to chronic illness, but the weight of the evidence is overwhelming that radiofrequency radiation exposure adds to the risk of most or all of these diseases.

From 1971 on, regulators from the FCC and FDA have turned a blind eye to the damning evi­dence in the U.S. Navy study and to subsequent U.S. government-funded studies, also ignoring the large and still growing body of research from around the world showing risk. Regulators have appeared to be more interested in advancing the commercial interests of the telecommunications industry than doing their jobs to protect public health. Their inaction adds to the dangerously false sense of safety that many still have today.

In 2015, the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University published a report titled Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates,¹⁹ detailing the regulatory failure. Results of a poll conducted by the Safra Research Lab on Institutional Corruption, included in the report, showed that most people would make different technology choices if aware of the risks of wire­less radiation.

The poll indicated that with adequate risk information, consumers would likely take action to reduce wireless use, restore landlines and protect children, of course with potentially significant economic consequences for all related industries.²⁰

 

TIME FOR CONCERTED ACTION

Many of us have felt angry and powerless, not knowing what to do as new small cell antennas go up on utility poles, street lamps, street signs and often just outside our homes. We rationalize, wanting to believe that the smaller antennas must be less dangerous, but nothing could be further from the truth. The antennas may be less obvious than cell towers, but they are still extremely powerful, employing a wider range of frequen­cies—from 700 megahertz up to 90 gigahertz—and often simultaneously using several different bands. The new technology also has far more intensive modulation and pulsation, which can be just as damaging as the energy itself. The worst part is these antennas are much closer to people than before, and proximity increases the danger. Many families now have small cell antennas within mere feet of their residences, pointing tight beams directly through bedroom windows.

With wireless radiation becom­ing increasingly hard to escape, it is making life extremely difficult for some people. Students in high-radiation classrooms, people in communal office settings and people near cell towers often have difficulty thinking well. Some people must head to the hills or sleep in cars to get a good night’s sleep. People af­fected in these ways currently may account for a small percentage of the population, but surveys show that they number in the millions, and with each added exposure and new generation of technology, the number with symptoms gets higher and higher.

In New York City today, thousands of high-powered, thirty-two-foot tall jumbo cell towers are being installed on sidewalks.²¹ The towers contain multiple tiers of antennas beaming into second- and third-floor windows. After my fifteen years of research on wireless risks, the installation of these jumbo cell towers in close proximity to human beings literally looks like murder. In New Jersey, battles are ongoing over thirty-five-foot cell towers planned along the beautiful Jersey Shore beaches.²²

Companies have placed anten­nas in bell towers, church steeples, on top of apartment buildings and water towers, and have even con­cealed them in the elevator shafts of high-rise buildings, impacting the health of people living in ad­jacent apartments without their knowledge.

Whereas wireless radiation may be invisible, cell towers and large antenna farms are not. Most of us can’t help but notice the ever-increasing aesthetic blight in our midst from this industrial infra­structure. The sight of antennas disguised as trees or cell towers on school property or antennas on hospital roofs— a pervasive visual infrastructure that is the antithesis of health and healing—is offensive.

Ron Fleming, chairman emeritus of Scenic America²³ and president of the Townscape In­stitute,²⁴ an award-winning public interest plan­ning organization focused on “conservation and visual enhancement of the built environments,” has discussed the visual impact of cell towers and antennas. Fleming says, “It is essential we acknowledge that the aesthetics of an environ­ment matters. Beauty matters. Architecture matters. Harmonic environments matter. En­vironments supportive of communities matter. Peace within our soul matters. All support biol­ogy and our outlook on life. The aesthetic blight in America today, including the ever-increasing number of cell towers and antennas, impacts us all. I very much support efforts to restore local control over this unsightly infrastructure.”

A RUDE AWAKENING

Since I began my focus on this public health issue, hundreds of new activist groups focused on wireless risks have sprung up in communities all across the country and the world. For almost two decades, these groups have educated the public about wireless risks and about various ways to minimize risks. Whole industries have sprung up to help people, selling meters to assess exposures, shielding paints, protective fabrics and more. Enrollment in the Building Biology Institute’s educational and certifica­tion programs has ballooned,²⁵ as people seek the technical knowledge to measure radiation levels and serve their communities. At some public libraries, library patrons can even check out a meter on loan.

Despite tremendous interest in the subject of wireless radiation, local communities attempting to fight cell towers and antennas have faced the rude awakening that it is almost impossible to succeed, at least on health or environ­mental grounds, unless the community has enacted well-drafted protective or­dinances. This is because, just prior to President Clinton’s signature, lobbyists for the telecommunications industry inserted language in the Telecommuni­cations Act of 1996 (Section 704), that removed the rights of state and local governments to regulate the siting of towers and antennas on health or envi­ronmental grounds.²⁶

The federal preemption in Section 704 served an important purpose for the telecom industry. It facilitated rapid, expedited deployment of cell towers and antennas across the coun­try with little resistance, while leaving Americans uninformed about the dangers. It also led courts to dismiss private lawsuits seeking relief from related personal injuries and property invasions, such as health effects, environmental impacts, aesthetic blight, property devaluation, temporary housing needs and relocation costs.

According to Scott McCollough, Esq., chief litigator for the EMR & Wireless Program at Children’s Health Defense (CHD),²⁷ “The FCC has authorized the activity, so individual relief would ‘conflict’ with the purposes and objectives underlying the FCC’s rules. The result is injured individuals have been deprived of their Constitutional rights and left with no recourse except to relocate, at their own expense, or to submit to ongoing exposure. We contend the FCC does not have the power to issue a license to kill and maim and destroy people’s right to object to personal and property invasions of this sort.”

Section 704 has also tied the hands of local authorities who would otherwise restrict cell tower and antenna deployment too close to homes and schools, in recreational areas and near flora and fauna and vulner­able ecosystems.

TACKLING SECTION 704

Something new and hopeful is emerging in the field of EMF activ­ism. The focus has expanded from a local, understandably self-protective focus, with people mostly wanting to know how they can be safe, to col­laborative initiatives that are asking two critical, societal-level questions:

1. What can we do to halt the non-stop proliferation of cell towers and antenna infrastructure nationwide?
2. What is it going to take to revise the FCC exposure guidelines so that they are biologically based and reflect wireless radiation’s effects on biological systems?

Groups are coming together to press for change on both issues. Many realize that together, they may be stronger, and that it may take groups in the U.S. working together to fuel and fi­nance the changes needed. Regarding the first question, people are fed up with the never-ending antenna proliferation that is polluting lives and landscapes and making them sick. Many are shocked to learn that their government has suppressed well-established risks for decades and is still working on behalf of industry interests.

In addition, Children’s Health Defense and Environmental Health Trust have chal­lenged the FCC’s inadequate exposure guidelines—a core enabler of the prolifera­tion of wireless infrastructure—in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled in 2021 that the FCC’s refusal to update its guidelines was unjustified, did not address the extensive evidence of health risks (es­pecially to children) and also ignored other environmental harms.²⁸

For over four years, the FCC has refused to honor the court mandate to justify its guidelines; despite repeated requests and reminders, it has left its inadequate and outdated rules in place. As a result, wireless ser­vice providers, real estate owners allowing transmitters on their property, manufacturers of wireless equipment and others cannot be sued for the harm they inflict. In response, CHD has spearheaded a major new, col­laborative effort, 704 No MoreTM,²⁹ which seeks to finally defang Section 704 and restore local rights over the placement of antenna infrastructure, as well as restore Constitutional rights for injured parties who to date have had no recourse.

The growing grassroots coalition includes over one hundred endors­ing health and environmental advocacy groups to date, including well-known groups like Environmental Health Trust, Moms Across America, Alliance for Natural Health, Safe Tech International, the National Call for Safe Technology, EMF Safety Network, National Health Federation, National Health Freedom Coalition, National Health Freedom Action and dozens of others. All question the sanity of the trajectory we are on—the deployment of an unending wire­less communications infrastructure emitting enormous amounts of biologically dysregulat­ing electrosmog into our living environments, harming all of biological life—when far safer communications options exist. Miriam Eck­enfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program, says, “We welcome the support of citizens nationwide who are outraged by the telecommunications industry’s egregious dis­regard for children’s health and our collective rights and interests.”

Like a growing number of physicians, Beatrice Go­lumb, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and director of the Golumb Research Group at the University of Cali­fornia, San Diego, has long applauded groups taking a stand on wireless radiation. Golumb says, “It is unimagi­nable there could be a law that blocks consideration of health effects for an exposure people are unable to avoid. This seems tantamount to abrogating the basic right of self-defense. Radiofrequency radiation exposures, it is well known, are biologically disruptive at levels well below the FCC’s exposure guidelines. As a physician who has seen innumerable people harmed by acute and chronic exposures to ra­diation emitted by cell towers and antennas, I stand firm in saying the federal preemption over such an important public health issue must be reversed and the rights of local governments to protect their communities must be restored.”

ANCIENT WISDOM FOR MODERN TIMES

It is time to assert sovereignty over our living environment, meaning the environments within our homes—where everything should be hard-wired—and in our neighborhoods, where access networks should be “fiber to the premises,” not cell towers or small cells. We must protect biological life in our larger home—the environment—as well.

In ancient Egypt (~2925 BC), there were said to be forty-two questions asked of one’s soul at death by forty-two judges. The ethical principles embedded in the questions were thought fundamental to becoming a fully real­ized human being and to maintaining order and justice. In this self-inquiry process, one looked honestly at one’s relationship to life, taking re­sponsibility for where one had fallen short. The first question asked of one’s soul was, “Hast thou treated thy body wisely and considerately?” while the fortieth question inquired about one’s relationship with the natural world: “Hast thou remembered the plants. . . and quenched their thirst and tended them so that they flourished?”

As a society, it would behoove us to begin a similar self-inquiry process, examining the relationship we have with ourselves and with the planetary biological systems around us. Through expanded consciousness, we may come to better appreciate the harm that has been inflicted by electromagnetic fields and become sincerely committed to correcting our present unconscious and destructive trajectory.

REFERENCES

1. President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission. The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment. The White House, May 2025.
2. Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency Radiation: Research Report. Bethesda: Naval Medical Research Institute, Oct. 4, 1971. Project MF12.524.015-0004B. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/naval_research_1971_on_rf.pdf
3. Adams RL, Williams RA. Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries (U). Defense Intelligence Agency, March 1976. DST-181OS-074-76. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Defense-Intelligence-Agency__us_dia_1976_biological_effects_of_electromagnetic_radiation.pdf
4. Petrov IR (Ed.). Influence of Microwave Radiation on the Organism of Man and Animals (translation of 1970 Leningrad publication). Washington, DC: NASA, February 1972. NASA TT F-708. https:// electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NASA-influence_of_microwave_radia­tion_on_the_organism_of_man_and_animals.pdf
5. Raines JK. Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories. Greenbelt, MD: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Apr. 9, 1981. NASA CR 166661. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/nasa_emf_field_interactions_-_ob­served_effects___theories_1981.pdf
6. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields. Washington, DC: EPA, October 1990. EPA/600/6-90/005B. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/3000102K.PDF?Dockey=3000102K.PDF
7. Bolen S. Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation Biological Effects and Safety Standards: A Review. Griffiss Air Force Base, NY: U.S. Air Force, June 1994. RL-TR-94-53. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Air-Force____1994_rf_effects_usaf.pdf
8. Letter (Dec. 13, 2006) from Susan J. Butterfield, Dept. of the Army, to Donald Friedman concerning FOIA request for “documents pertaining to the microwave auditory effect. . . .” https://electromag­netichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/usarmyrptonmicrowavefx.pdf
9. Moskowitz JM. Department of Interior attacks the FCC regarding adverse impact of cell tower radiation on wildlife. ElectromagneticHealth.org, Mar. 24, 2014.
10. Cell phones wireless companies warn shareholders about future financial risks from electromagnetic radiation. Environmental Health Trust, n.d.
11. Swiss Re SONAR: Emerging Risks Insights. Swiss Re, June 2013. https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/Zwitserland%20Swiss%20Reinsuranse%202013.pdf
12. Off the leash – 5G mobile networks. Swiss Re, May 22, 2019. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019/SONAR2019-off-the-leash.html
13. CTIA: Wireless data demand continues its steep rise. Inside Towers, Sep. 11, 2024.
14. U.S. wireless data use skyrockets, passing 100T megabyte milestone, CTIA annual survey finds. CTIA, Sep. 10, 2024.
15. McGough M, Wager E, Winger A, et al. How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? Peterson-KFF, Dec. 20, 2024.
16. Lear RA, Rees CRG. Safety of Wireless Technologies: The Scientific View, Appendix A. Electro­magneticHealth.org, February 2025. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Safety-of-Wireless-Technologies-Ver5-020525.pdf
17. New paper: “Safety of Wireless Technologies—The Scientific View” says chronic disease epidemic was predicted by U.S. Navy research over 50 years ago. Manhattan Neighbors for Safer Telecom­munications, n.d.
18. https://zoryglaser.com/
19. Alster N. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates. Cambridge, MA: Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, 2015.
20. Harvard University, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, issues harsh critique of the FCC, calling the regulator “captured” by the wireless industry. ElectromagneticHealth.org, Jul. 26, 2015. https://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/report-norm-alster/
21. New York City Council hearings on 5G jumbo towers and the digital divide, aesthetics, property value and health. Environmental Health Trust, Jul. 5, 2023.
22. Pandolfo C. Verizon plan to install 5G poles along popular Jersey Shore beach stirs uproar. FOX­Business, Sep. 24, 2024.
23. https://www.scenic.org/
24. https://www.townscape.org/
25. https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/
26. https://ehtrust.org/policy/the-telecommunications-act-of-1996/
27. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/electromagnetic-radiation-wireless/
28. Hardesty L. Court orders FCC to revisit its safety guidelines for RF radiation. Fierce Network, Aug. 16, 2021.
29. https://www.704nomore.org/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2025

🖨️ Print post