The mobile phone industry uses the same apporach as the tabaco industry used quite successfully for many years. The goal is to spread doubt about existing studies. If the financial source of each study is taken into account it is clear that most of the industry funded studies show no health effects, whereas most of the independently funded studies show severe health effects like cancer, DNA damage.

Here you find a selection of some of the important recent studies:

  • (1995) Study by Prof. Henry Lai: Around 20 years before the REFLEX study (see below) Henry Lai already found the correlation between electromagnetic radiation and DNA damage. The intensity of the radiation was lower than with typical cell found usage. It was an analog signal back then, but the biologic effects that were found could later be replicated also with pulsed microwave radiation. See article on; PDF download of the study can be found on; Interview with Prof. Henry Lai on Youtube)
  • (2007) Interphone study : Learn about the design flaws of this study (for example a regular cell phone user was defined as someone you uses the phone once a week. Another issue: cordless phone users were seen as unexposed. And 9 more flaws…) – Lloyd Morgan video on
  • (2004) REFLEX study : Leading Austrian medical researcher Prof. Franz Adlkofer coordinated the REFLEX study of EMR bioeffects funded by the European Commission. The study’s conclusion: High frequency electro-magnetic fields damage genes and gene function. He tells how telecom interests attempted (unsuccessfully) to discredit the study and destroy the careers of its authors and publishers. – watch interview with Prof. Adlkofer on youtube
  • (2012) BioInitive Report are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness. […]”
  • (2015-03) Remarkable New RF-Animal Study: A new animal study challenged many of the assumptions which lie at the heart of claims that RF radiation —whether from cell phones, cell towers or Wi-Fi— are safe:
  • (2015-07) Review article “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation” on 100 peer-reviewed studies by Igor Yakymenko et al
    Conclusion: “The analysis of modern data on biological effects of lowintensity RFR [radio-frequency radiation] leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cell. …”
  • (2016) NTP-study: “[…] These are the largest, most complex studies ever conducted by NTP. For the studies, rats and mice were exposed to frequencies and modulations currently used in cellular communications in the United States. The rodents were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off increments, totaling just over 9 hours a day from before birth through 2 years of age. NTP found low incidences of tumors in the brains and hearts of male rats, but not in female rats. Studies in mice are continuing.[…]”
    Full summary on the NTP website:
    Excerpt: […] Lastly, the tumors in the brain and heart observed at low incidence in male rats exposed to GSM- and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR in this study are of a type similar to tumors observed in some epidemiology studies of cell phone use. These findings appear to support the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusions regarding the possible carcinogenic potential of RFR. […]” (PDF)
  • (2021) STOA study (Science and Technology Options Assessment – Panel of the European Parliament): Health impact of 5G (
  • (2022) BioInitiative – 2022 Updated Research Summaries
    • (Excerpt) Rradiofrequency electromagnetic radiations (RFR) Free Radical (Oxidative Damage): 263 out of 288 studies (91%) show biological effects ( pdf)

EHS studies