EMF Radiation & Health: Separating Facts From Myths

 

In today's technology-driven society, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are omnipresent and emitted by everyday devices such as smartphones, Wi-Fi routers, electric vehicles and household appliances. As our reliance on these technologies grows, so does the public's concern about the potential health effects of prolonged EMF exposure. Understanding how EMFs interact with the human body is crucial for making informed decisions about our well-being. This comprehensive article explores the latest scientific research on EMFs, examines the possible health risks associated with chronic exposure, and provides evidence-based insights to help you navigate the complexities of electromagnetic radiation. Whether you are curious about EMF sources, the current debates surrounding their safety or strategies to manage your EMF footprint, our guide on EMF and health offers valuable information to support a healthy, informed lifestyle.

Introduction

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are fundamental forces of nature arising from the movement of electrical charges. EMFs are often referred to as radiation that permeates the environment due to natural phenomena and human activities. EMFs are characterized by their frequency and wavelength, which determine their behavior and interaction with matter. The electromagnetic spectrum contains a vast range of frequencies, from static fields with a frequency of 0 Hz to extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, radiofrequency (RF) fields, and higher frequencies like ultraviolet, microwaves, infrared, visible light,  X-rays and gamma rays.(1)

Understanding the sources and characteristics of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is essential for assessing exposure and potential adverse health effects and outcomes. Natural EMFs have always been present, but human activities have introduced additional sources—especially at extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges—through various devices and infrastructure that facilitate electricity distribution, communication, transportation and various industrial processes. 

Nature of Electromagnetic Fields

EMFs can be broadly categorized based on their frequency and energy levels:

• Non-Ionizing Radiation:  Includes lower frequencies and longer wavelengths. It lacks sufficient energy to remove bound electrons from atoms or molecules, meaning it does not ionize matter. Non-ionizing radiation includes static fields, ELF fields (up to 300 Hz), intermediate frequencies (300 Hz to 10 MHz), and RF fields (10 MHz to 300 GHz). Examples are power lines, household electrical appliances, microwaves and wireless communication signals.(2)

• Ionizing Radiation: EMFs with very high frequencies and short wavelengths possess enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules by detaching electrons. This category includes ultraviolet light (at specific frequencies), X-rays and gamma rays.(3)

Natural Sources of EMFs

Earth's Magnetic Field

The Earth generates a significant magnetic field and acts like a giant magnet because of the movement of molten iron within its outer core. This magnetic field extends from the planet's interior out into space. It is strongest at the Earth's surface, at about 25 to 65 microteslas (µT). It plays a crucial role in navigation (compass orientation) and protects living organisms from harmful cosmic radiation by deflecting charged particles from the sun.(4-5) 

Atmospheric and Geological Phenomena

Lightning and thunderstorms generate transient electric and magnetic fields, contributing to the Earth's natural electromagnetic background. During a thunderstorm, the movement of air masses, water droplets, and ice particles within clouds leads to the separation of positive and negative charges, creating strong electric fields.(6)

Schumann resonances are global electromagnetic resonances occurring within the Earth's Ionosphere cavity. They are primarily excited by lightning discharges and have a fundamental frequency of around 7.83 Hz and several higher harmonics. They occur at ELF frequencies around 7.8 Hz and harmonics thereof.(7) 

Variations in Schumann resonances result from ionospheric changes due to solar radiation, fluctuations in global lightning activity, solar and geomagnetic events altering ionospheric conditions, atmospheric conditions affecting wave propagation and long-term climatic shifts impacting thunderstorms.(8-9)

Man-Made Sources of EMFs

The emergence of electricity and wireless technology has introduced numerous artificial sources of EMFs. These include the following frequencies:

Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields

Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) fields are electromagnetic fields ranging from 0 to 300 Hz. They are commonly produced by various artificial sources such as power lines, electrical wiring in buildings, and household appliances, including refrigerators, washing machines and hairdryers.(10) 

Due to their low frequencies, ELF fields have very long wavelengths—up to thousands of kilometers—which means they can penetrate most materials without significant attenuation. ELF fields are basically everywhere in modern environments because of the widespread use of electricity and electrical devices. 

Intermediate Frequency (IF) Fields

Intermediate Frequency (IF) fields are electromagnetic fields ranging from 300 Hz to 10 MHz. They are emitted by various devices such as older computer equipment like cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, fluorescent lighting ballasts (or CFLs), electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems used in retail stores for theft prevention and metal detectors employed in security screening at airports and public buildings. Household’s strongest IF emitters are induction cookers, CFLs, LCD TVs and microwave ovens.(11)

Radiofrequency (RF) Fields 

Radiofrequency (RF) fields range from 0 MHz to 300 GHz. They are emitted by various devices fundamental to modern life, such as communication, heating, navigation and medical technologies. Wireless communication devices like mobile phones and base stations (operating from 700 MHz to 2.6 GHz for 4G and up to 100 GHz for 5G), cordless phones around 1.8 GHz and tablets and laptops with cellular or Wi-Fi capabilities emit RF fields during data transmission. In Europe, highest RF-EMF exposure levels occurr in public settings such as libraries, train and tram stations, with typical RF-EMF exposure levels of 0.5 V/m or higher.(12) 

Broadcasting infrastructure (e.g.  radio and television transmitters) uses frequencies from about 500 kHz (AM radio) to several hundred MHz (FM radio and TV). Satellite communications employ microwave frequencies. Wi-Fi routers and Bluetooth devices operate mainly at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands for wireless connectivity. 

Microwave ovens utilize RF fields at 2.45 GHz to heat food through dielectric heating by exciting water molecules.(13) Radar and navigational systems, including aviation, maritime and weather radar, emit RF pulses at various microwave frequencies to detect objects and gather meteorological data. 

Wireless medical implants like pacemakers, insulin pumps and consumer wearables communicate wirelessly to monitor and manage health conditions.

ELECTRIC CARS & EMF

Electric cars or vehicles (EV) emit electromagnetic fields (EMFs) across a spectrum of frequencies due to their electrical components and systems. They produce extremely low frequency (ELF) fields (0 to 300 Hz) from the operation of electric motors and the flow of current between the battery and motor, as well as intermediate frequency (IF) fields (300 Hz to 10 MHz) from power electronics like inverters and converters that switch currents at high frequencies (typically between 2 kHz and 20 kHz).(14) 

They emit IF fields during wireless charging (ranging from 20 to 150 kHz) if equipped with inductive charging systems. Additionally, radiofrequency (RF) fields (10 MHz to 300 GHz) are emitted by onboard wireless communication systems such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi (operating at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz), cellular networks (700 MHz to over 2 GHz), and keyless entry systems (typically at 315 MHz or 433 MHz). 

These components indeed generate EMFs across various frequencies, but the levels of exposure inside electric vehicles are low and conform to international safety guidelines. Design measures like shielding and careful cable routing minimize EMF emissions to ensure occupant safety. However, some researchers have stated that chronic EMF exposure for EV drivers near multiple sources poses potential health risks, necessitating research on EMF characteristics and health outcomes in public transportation workers and implementing preventive measures like relocating electrical equipment away from cabins to reduce exposure.

 

Exposure to EMF in Various Occupations & Environments

• Electrical Workers
• Electricians, power line technicians and substation operators may experience higher EMF exposure due to proximity to high-voltage equipment.
• Industrial Workers
• Those operating induction heaters, welding equipment or working near large electric motors.
• Healthcare Professionals
• MRI technicians and medical staff working with diathermy equipment.
• Proximity to Power Lines
• Homes near high-voltage transmission lines may have elevated ELF field levels.
• Use of Electrical Appliances
• Daily use of household devices contributes to personal EMF exposure.
• Wireless Devices
• The extensive use of smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi routers and other wireless technologies in homes.
• Transportation Hubs
• Airports and train stations are equipped with security screening devices that emit EMFs.
• Urban Areas
• Dense networks of cellular base stations and Wi-Fi hotspots increase ambient RF field levels. 

Factors Influencing EMF Exposure

• Distance from the Source
• EMF intensity decreases rapidly with increasing distance from the source. Due to the inverse square law, even small increases in distance can significantly reduce exposure levels.
• Duration of Exposure
• More prolonged periods spent near EMF sources result in higher cumulative exposure.
• Field Strength (Intensity)
• Higher-intensity fields induce stronger electric currents or greater energy absorption, increasing the likelihood of biological effects.
• Frequency of the EMF
• Different frequencies interact with biological tissues in various ways. ELF fields are more associated with induced currents affecting nerve and muscle cells; RF fields are linked to thermal effects.
• Individual Susceptibility
• Age, health status, genetics and pre-existing medical conditions can influence how an individual responds to EMF exposure. 
• Environmental Conditions
• External factors like ambient temperature, humidity and the presence of conductive materials can modify the body's response to EMFs. 
• Shielding and Building Materials
• Certain materials can attenuate EMFs, influencing exposure levels indoors versus outdoors.
• Personal Behavior
• Carrying a mobile phone close to the body, using laptops on the lap or spending extended time using wireless devices affect individual exposure.

Biological Mechanisms of EMF Interaction

The interaction between electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and biological systems is significantly influenced by their frequency and intensity. EMFs can induce electric currents within the body at low frequencies (e.g., power lines and household appliances). These induced currents can affect cellular functions by altering normal electrical signals in tissues, potentially impacting processes like nerve signal transmission and muscle contraction.(15) 

At higher frequencies, particularly in the radiofrequency (RF) range used by wireless communication devices, EMFs can cause tissue heating due to energy absorption. This phenomenon (dielectric heating) results from the oscillation of polar molecules like water within tissues, leading to a rise in temperature that can affect cell viability if exposure is sufficiently intense or prolonged (think about a microwave oven).(16)

The extent of biological effects from EMF exposure depends on several factors, including exposure duration, field strength (intensity) and individual susceptibility. Longer exposure times and higher field strengths increase the likelihood of significant interactions with biological tissues. Individual susceptibility varies based on age, health status and genetic predispositions, meaning some people may be more sensitive to EMF effects than others.(17) 

Health Effects Associated with EMF Exposure

Cancer Risks

In 2011, IARC classified RF electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), citing limited evidence from human studies and inadequate evidence from animal studies.(18)

Epidemiological studies have observed an association between prolonged exposure to ELF magnetic fields exceeding 0.3 to 0.4 microteslas (µT) and an increased risk of childhood leukemia. However, the evidence is inconsistent, with confounding factors like socioeconomic status potentially influencing the results.(19)

Interestingly, magnetic field exposure (ELF) is associated with childhood leukemia in government-funded studies but not in industry-funded ones. ELF exposure has been shown to increase the risk of adult leukemia, brain and breast cancer. Thus it is recommended to reduce human exposure to elevated magnetic fields.(20)

Extensive research has investigated the potential link between radiofrequency (RF) exposure from mobile phones and brain tumors such as glioma and acoustic neuroma. The 2010 International Interphone Study found no consistent association between mobile phone use and brain tumors. There were, however, suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.(21)

A 2024 published COSMOS study that found no association with brain tumors has been criticized for bad and selective methodology. The study was also partially funded by the telecommunications industry in three countries, which automatically puts it into doubt.(22)

In contrast, Choi et al.'s 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users who use their phones for 1000 or more hours cumulatively in their lifetime. They called for high-quality, prospective cohort studies to confirm the results of the case-control research.(23)

To summarize, it is likely that extended and close-to-head mobile phone use may pose a cancer risk.

Other Health Effects

Neurological and Cognitive Effects

The neurological effects of EMF radiation and fields are multifaceted, involving changes in ion channel function, neurotransmitter dynamics and behavioral outcomes.(24) Electromagnetic fields may also cause oxidative stress in the nervous system, potentially leading to neurological diseases and associated symptoms like headaches, sleep disturbances and fatigue.(25) Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure may induce changes in central nervous system nerve cells and act as a stress source.(26)

EMF exposure also poses risks of neurodegeneration and cognitive impairments, particularly with prolonged or high-intensity exposure.(27) Non-thermal microwave EMF exposures from cell phones, wireless smart meters and radio stations can produce diverse neuropsychiatric effects, including depression.(28)

Based on a large meta-analysis from 2008, occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease. However, more information on duration, biological mechanisms, and interactions with established risk factors is needed.(29)

Effects on Sleep Patterns

The effects of EMF exposure on sleep patterns are complex and vary depending on the frequency and intensity of the EMF and individual and gender differences. While some studies suggest even slight sleep-promoting effects or increased EEG power in specific frequency ranges (with PEMF therapy),(30) others indicate potential disturbances, particularly with low-frequency EMFs.(31) Exposure to low-frequency EMFs (50 Hz) has been associated with reduced total sleep time, sleep efficiency and slow-wave sleep.(32)

Extensive cross-sectional studies and some experimental studies have not found significant associations between everyday RF-EMF exposure and impaired sleep quality or increased daytime sleepiness.(33-34)

Overall, the current research does not provide conclusive evidence of significant adverse effects on sleep due to EMF exposure. However, further research is needed to understand these interactions fully.

Before we have conclusive research on EMF and sleep, it is recommended that you do not sleep with your phone and Wi-Fi router close to bed to minimize possible EMF risks. If you must have a phone close to your bed, put it in airplane mode to minimize radiation.

Cardiovascular Effects

Most studies indicate that EMF exposure, whether from low-frequency or radiofrequency sources, does not significantly impact cardiovascular parameters such as heart rate, blood pressure or cardiac function in both animal and humans studies.(35-36)  

However, conflicting findings exist regarding the effect of EMFs on heart rate variability, with some studies suggesting potential alterations in autonomic regulation. For example, exposure to environmental artificial EMFs significantly correlates with decreased SDNN, SDANN and PNN50 indices in heart rate variability.(37-38)

Additionally, emerging evidence suggests that specific EMF spectrums may have therapeutic applications for certain cardiovascular conditions.

Reproductive and Developmental Effects

EMF exposure has been shown to affect reproductive and developmental health. EMF exposure increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, leading to oxidative stress and potential DNA damage in reproductive cells. Oxidative stress is linked to disruptions in spermatogenesis and oogenesis, affecting sperm quality and oocyte differentiation.(39) 

EMF exposure from mobile phones can cause an imbalance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant mechanisms, leading to disruptions in spermatogenic cells and potentially DNA damage. Additionally, mobile phone exposure may negatively impact fertility and reproductive processes through cellular alterations, protein misfolding and DNA damage.(40-41)   

To summarize, the impact on male and female fertility, as well as pregnancy outcomes, varies with the type, frequency and duration of EMF exposure. Some studies have reported significant adverse effects, while others find minimal or no impact.(42) This again emphasizes the need for more standardized and controlled research to understand the implications of EMF exposure on reproductive health.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a condition in which individuals report experiencing adverse health effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile phones, Wi-Fi routers and other electronic devices. They report nonspecific symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and skin irritation, which they attribute to EMF exposure.(43-44) 

Three main hypotheses explain the origin of EHS:

• The electromagnetic hypothesis (direct EMF effects)
• The cognitive hypothesis (nocebo effect from belief in EMF harm)
• The attributive hypothesis (coping mechanism for pre-existing conditions)

A few studies suggest the biological possibility for EHS, indicating that EMF exposure can lead to changes in calcium signaling, activation of free radical processes and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. These changes could potentially explain the neurological and physiological symptoms reported by EHS sufferers.(45) Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress.(46-48)

Some researchers also postulate that electrohypersensitivity is a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation, oxidative stress, blood-brain barrier leakage and neurotransmitter abnormalities. They state that electrohypersensitivity should be defined by the decrease in the brain's electromagnetic field tolerance threshold.(49) 

However, blind and double-blind provocation studies generally do not support the ability of EHS sufferers to detect EMF exposure better than chance, suggesting that EMF may not directly cause symptoms. Scientific evidence suggests that the symptoms may be influenced by nocebo effects or environmental factors unrelated to EMF exposure.(50-51)

Surveys indicate that a small percentage of the population reports EHS, with a higher prevalence among middle-aged women and people with poor perceived health. Comorbid conditions such as anxiety, depression, and functional somatic syndromes are common among EHS sufferers.(52-53)

Research on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is still in its early stages and faces methodological challenges. Therefore, even if current scientific evidence does not fully support its existence, the condition may still be biologically possible. New research should combine EMF exposure with high-throughput molecular techniques to objectively detect individual biochemical responses, recognizing that sensitivity to EMF depends on genetic and epigenetic factors.(54)

EMF Exposure Guidelines and Regulatory Standards

Understanding and managing exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is crucial for general health and safety. To address this, international guidelines and national regulations have been established to limit EMF exposure from various sources.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have developed comprehensive exposure limits to protect people from EMF exposure's known adverse health effects. These guidelines are grounded in extensive scientific research and are designed to prevent health risks associated with both short-term and long-term exposure to EMFs of different frequencies.

ICNIRP Guidelines

This covers exposure to non-ionizing radiation, including static, low-frequency, and radiofrequency fields up to 300 GHz. It provides limits for occupational exposure (for workers) and general public exposure, considering factors like frequency, intensity, and duration. It relies on peer-reviewed research and expert evaluations of biological effects, such as tissue heating from radiofrequency fields and nerve stimulation from low-frequency fields.(55)

According to a rigorous scientific critique, ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis for setting RF-EMF exposure limits for protecting human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. The independent researchers also state that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.(56)

IEEE Standards

The IEEE Standards play a pivotal role in establishing safety levels for human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), with a particular focus on the radiofrequency (RF) range. These standards, especially the IEEE C95 series, provide comprehensive guidelines that set scientifically-based exposure limits to protect against known adverse health effects of RF fields.(57) 

IEEE Standards detail specific thresholds for occupational and general public exposure, considering factors such as frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure. The IEEE Standards also outline precise measurement techniques and protocols to ensure accurate assessment and compliance with the established limits.(58) 

The Health Effects of 5G Radiation

Since its appearance worldwide, the health effects of 5G radiation have been a topic of significant concern and research. Various studies have investigated the potential biological and health impacts of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) associated with 5G technology. RF-EMF is increasingly recognized as environmental pollution, with potential synergistic effects from other toxic exposures.(59)

RF-EMF exposure, including 5G, has been shown to promote oxidative stress, which is linked to cancer, acute and chronic diseases and vascular issues. Millimeter waves (MMW) used in 5G can increase skin temperature, alter gene expression and promote cellular proliferation and protein synthesis which are linked to oxidative stress and inflammation.(60-61)

Given the existing evidence, some researchers advocate for the precautionary principle, suggesting that exposed subjects may be potentially vulnerable and that existing exposure limits should be revised.

Based on a large study review published in 2021, current experimental and epidemiological studies provide no confirmed evidence that low-level millimeter waves (MMWs) are associated with adverse health effects.(62) This review has, however, received methodological critique: "Kapridis et al. (2021) review is inadequate and incomplete—providing insufficient evidence of safety (which industry uses to justify widespread 5G rollout)—and wrongly equating risk management with confirming harm (a point at which it is too late given the large population exposed without consent), leading us to advocate for a precautionary approach due to known and unknown risks."(63)

Since 2022, research has progressed rapidly, and both human and animal studies have shown some additional adverse health effects.

Based on a very recent publication (2024), seven Swedish case reports involved 16 individuals aged 4 to 83 who developed symptoms associated with microwave syndrome shortly after exposure to high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from nearby 5G base stations, with peak measurements exceeding 2,500,000 μW/m². Common symptoms included sleep difficulties (insomnia, early waking), headaches, fatigue, irritability, concentration problems, immediate memory loss, emotional distress, depression tendencies, anxiety or panic, unusual touch sensations (dysesthesia), skin sensations like burning and sharp pain, cardiovascular symptoms (transient high or irregular pulse), shortness of breath (dyspnea), and muscle and joint pain; balance disorders and tinnitus were less common. In most cases, these symptoms diminished or disappeared after the individuals moved away from areas with 5G exposure. The authors consider these case histories as typical examples of provocation studies and suggest that these findings reinforce the urgency to halt the deployment of 5G until more safety studies have been conducted.(64)

A 2024 study exposing mice to 4.9 GHz radiofrequency fields, simulating 5G communication exposure, found that long-term exposure altered gut microbiota composition and metabolic profiles—evidenced by reduced microbial diversity and significant changes in metabolites—suggesting that 4.9 GHz RF exposure is associated with changes in gut microbiota and metabolism.(65)

Weller and McCredden (2024) examined the 5G health effects debate and found that public concerns are rational and health-focused. Independent scientists warning of risks are highly experienced in EMF and health. In contrast, those dismissing these risks often have industry affiliations or regulatory ties—tactics paralleling those used by the tobacco industry. The authors called for greater transparency, including precautionary principles in policymaking, and the involvement of independent scientists and public voices to address the potential health impacts of 5G technology.(66)

To summarize, the potential adverse health effects of the proximity of 5G base stations are real and should be considered when assessing individual and public health. Research on the health effects of 5G should be non-biased and transparent, analyzing all possible outcomes and mechanisms.

How to Protect From Excessive EMF Radiation

Protecting yourself from excess electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation involves adopting strategies that effectively reduce exposure to these pervasive energy fields.

Scientifically supported methods to minimize EMF exposure include the following:(67-68)

1. Increase Distance from EMF Sources: The intensity of EMF exposure decreases sharply with distance. For example, using a speakerphone or headphones with your smartphone keeps the device away from your head and body, thereby reducing exposure.
2. Limit Use of EMF-Emitting Devices: Reducing the time spent using devices such as cell phones, tablets and laptops can lower overall EMF exposure. Choose wired alternatives over wireless ones (see next step).
3. Use Wired Connections: Opting for wired internet connections (Ethernet) instead of Wi-Fi and wired peripherals (mouse, keyboard) can significantly reduce reliance on wireless signals and associated EMF emissions.
4. Turn Off Devices When Not in Use: Powering down electronic devices, especially those that emit EMFs like Wi-Fi routers and cordless phones, when they are not needed can reduce unnecessary exposure.
5. Maintain Distance in the Home: Position EMF sources away from frequently occupied areas such as bedrooms and living rooms. For instance, place your Wi-Fi router in a less central location to minimize exposure in areas where you spend the most time.
6. Use Airplane Mode: Activating airplane mode on your smartphone and other wireless devices when not in use can significantly decrease EMF emissions.
7. Optimize Device Settings: Lowering the power settings on EMF-emitting devices, such as reducing the brightness of screens or limiting the use of wireless features, can help minimize exposure.
8. Shielding: In specific situations, using EMF shielding materials (e.g., shielding fabrics and window films) can reduce EMF penetration into living or working spaces. However, the effectiveness of such measures can vary.

Conclusion

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are integral to the natural environment and modern technological society. Understanding their sources and characteristics is essential for assessing exposure and potential health effects. While natural EMFs have always been present, human activities have introduced additional sources, especially at extremely low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) ranges. These fields are produced by various devices and infrastructures that facilitate electricity distribution, communication, transportation, and various industrial processes.

Awareness of EMF types and sources allows for informed decisions regarding exposure and implementing safety measures where necessary. Based on current scientific knowledge, regulatory bodies try to establish guidelines and standards to ensure that EMF emissions from devices and installations remain within safe levels. Continuous research and technological advancements contribute to refining these standards and enhancing our understanding of EMFs and their interactions with biological systems.

Scientific References:

1. Habash, R. (2018). Electromagnetic fields and radiation: human bioeffects and safety. CRC Press.

2. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2020). Principles for non-ionizing radiation protection. Health Physics 118 (5): 477–482.

3. Jaffe, R. & Taylor, W. (2018). The physics of energy. Chapter 20: Ionizing Radiation. Cambridge University Press.

4. Buis, A. (2021). Earth's magnetosphere: Protecting our planet from harmful space energy–climate change: Vital signs of the planet. NASA. 

5. Finlay, C. et al. (2010). International geomagnetic reference field: the eleventh generation. Geophysical Journal International 183 (3): 1216–1230.

6. Dwyer, J. & Uman, M. (2014). The physics of lightning. Physics Reports 534 (4): 147–241.

7. Price, C., Pechony, O., & Greenberg, E. (2007). Schumann resonances in lightning research. Journal of Lightning Research 1: 1-15.

8. Dyrda, M. & Kulak, A. & Mlynarczyk, J. & Ostrowski, M. (2015). Novel analysis of a sudden ionospheric disturbance using Schumann resonance measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120 (3): 2255–2262.

9. Han, B. et al. (2023). Seasonal and interannual variations in the Schumann resonance observed in the ELF electromagnetic networks in China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 128 (22): e2023JD038602.

10. Bonato, M. & Chiaramello, E. & Parazzini, M. & Gajšek, P. & Ravazzani, P. (2023). Extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields exposure: Survey of recent findings. IEEE Journal of Electromagnetics, RF and Microwaves in Medicine and Biology 7 (3): 216–228.

11. Aerts, S. et al. (2017). Measurements of intermediate-frequency electric and magnetic fields in households. Environmental Research 154: 160–170.

12. Jalilian, H. & Eeftens, M. & Ziaei, M. & Röösli, M. (2019). Public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in everyday microenvironments: An updated systematic review for Europe. Environmental Research 176: 108517.

13. Ramaswamy, H. & Tang, J. (2008). Microwave and radio frequency heating. Food Science and Technology International 14 (5): 423–427.

14. Gryz, K. & Karpowicz, J. & Zradziński, P. (2022). Complex electromagnetic issues associated with the use of electric vehicles in urban transportation. Sensors 22 (5): 1719.

15. Frey, A. (1993). Electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems 1. The FASEB Journal 7 (2): 272–281.

16. Roy, B. & Niture, S. & Wu, M. (2020). Biological effects of low power nonionizing radiation: a narrative review. Journal of Radiation Research and Imaging 1 (1): 1–23.

17. Belpomme, D. & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research 212: 113374.

18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2011). IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Press release, 208.

19. Kheifets, L. et al. (2010). A pooled analysis of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood brain tumors. American Journal of Epidemiology 172 (7): 752–761.

20. Carpenter, D. (2019). Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results. Environmental Research 178: 108688.

21. INTERPHONE Study Group. (2010). Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (3): 675–694.

22. Feychting, M. et al. (2024). Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk–COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environment International 185: 108552.

23. Choi, Y. & Moskowitz, J. & Myung, S. & Lee, Y. & Hong, Y. (2020). Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (21): 8079.

24. Bertagna, F. & Lewis, R. & Silva, S. & McFadden, J. & Jeevaratnam, K. (2021). Effects of electromagnetic fields on neuronal ion channels: a systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1499 (1): 82–103.

25. Terzi, M. & Ozberk, B. & Deniz, O. & Kaplan, S. (2016). The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75: 77–84.

26. Kim, J. et al. (2019). Possible effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on central nerve system. Biomolecules & Therapeutics 27 (3): 265–275.

27. Sharma, A. & Kesari, K. & Verma, H. & Sisodia, R. (2017). Neurophysiological and behavioral dysfunctions after electromagnetic field exposure: a dose response relationship. Perspectives in Environmental Toxicology 1–30.

28. Pall, M. (2016). Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75: 43–51.

29. García, A. & Sisternas, A. & Hoyos, S (2008). Occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields and Alzheimer disease: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 37 (2): 329–340.

30. Borbély, A. et al. (1999). Pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field affects human sleep and sleep electroencephalogram. Neuroscience Letters 275 (3): 207–210.

31. Mann, K. & Röschke, J. (2004). Sleep under exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Sleep Medicine Reviews 8 (2): 95–107.

32. Åkerstedt, T. & Arnetz, B. & Ficca, G. & PAULSSON, L. & Kallner, A. (1999). A 50‐Hz electromagnetic field impairs sleep. Journal of Sleep Research 8 (1): 77–81.

33. Mohler, E. & Frei, P. & Braun-Fahrländer, C. & Fröhlich, J. & Neubauer, G. & Röösli, M. & Qualifex Team. (2010). Effects of everyday radiofrequency electromagnetic-field exposure on sleep quality: a cross-sectional study. Radiation Research 174 (3): 347–356.

34. Mohler, E. & Frei, P. & Fröhlich, J. & Braun-Fahrländer, C. & Röösli, M. & QUALIFEX-team. (2012). Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and sleep quality: a prospective cohort study. PloS One 7 (5): e37455.

35. Zhang, Y. et al. (2020). Examination of the effect of a 50-Hz electromagnetic field at 500 μT on parameters related with the cardiovascular system in rats. Frontiers in Public Health 8: 87.

36. Braune, S. & Riedel, A. & Schulte-Mönting, J. & Raczek, J. (2002). Influence of a radiofrequency electromagnetic field on cardiovascular and hormonal parameters of the autonomic nervous system in healthy individuals. Radiation Research 158 (3): 352–356.

37. Mansourian, M. & Marateb, H. & Nouri, R. & Mansourian, M. (2024). Effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability parameters of general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Reviews on Environmental Health 39 (3): 603–616.

38. McNamee, D. et al. (2009). A literature review: the cardiovascular effects of exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 82: 919–933.

39. Gye, M. & Park, C. (2012). Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system. Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39 (1): 1–9.

40. Yahyazadeh, A. et al. (2018). The genomic effects of cell phone exposure on the reproductive system. Environmental Research 167: 684–693.

41. Santini, S. et al. (2018). Role of mitochondria in the oxidative stress induced by electromagnetic fields: focus on reproductive systems. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2018 (1): 5076271.

42. Pacchierotti, F. et al. (2021). Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcomes: Protocols for a systematic review of experimental studies in non-human mammals and in human sperm exposed in vitro. Environment International 157: 106806.

43. Dieudonné, M. (2020). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environmental Health 19: 1–12.

44. Genuis, S. & Lipp, C. (2012). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction?. Science of the Total Environment 414: 103–112.

45. Stein, Y. & Udasin, I. (2020). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome)–Review of mechanisms. Environmental Research 186: 109445.

46. Korkina, L. & Scordo, M. & Deeva, I. & Cesareo, E. & De Luca, C. (2009). The chemical defensive system in the pathobiology of idiopathic environment-associated diseases. Current Drug Metabolism 10 (8): 914–931.

47. De Luca, C. et al. (2014). Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators of inflammation 2014 (1): 924184.

48. Thoradit, T. et al. (2024). Hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EHS) correlates with immune responsivity to oxidative stress: a case report. Communicative & Integrative Biology 17 (1): 2384874.

49. Belpomme, D. & Irigaray, P. (2022). Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment. Environmental Research 212: 113374.

50. Rubin, G. & Munshi, J. & Wessely, S. (2005). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosomatic Medicine 67 (2): 224–232.

51. Seitz, H. & Stinner, D. & Eikmann, T. & Herr, C. & Röösli, M. (2005). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication—a literature review published between 2000 and 2004. Science of the Total Environment 349 (1-3): 45–55.

52. Gruber, M. & Palmquist, E. & Nordin, S. (2018). Characteristics of perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the general population. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 59 (4): 422–427.

53. Tseng, M. & Lin, Y. & Cheng, T. (2011). Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of self-reported electromagnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: a population-based study. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 110 (10): 634–641.

54. Leszczynski, D. (2022). Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Reviews on Environmental Health 37 (3): 423–450.

55. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics 118 (5): 483–524.

56. Nordhagen, E. & Flydal, E. (2023). Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines. Reviews on Environmental Health 38 (3): 531–546.

57. Safety, I. I. C. (2019). o. E. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. IEEE Std C95. 1–2019 (Revision of IEEE Std C95. 1–2005/Incorporates IEEE Std C95. 1–2019/Cor 1–2019), 1-312.

58. Bailey, W. et al. (2019). Synopsis of IEEE Std C95. 1™-2019 “IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz”. IEEE Access 7: 171346–171356.

59. Jazyah, Y. (2024). Thermal and Nonthermal Effects of 5 G Radio‐Waves on Human’s Tissue. The Scientific World Journal 2024 (1): 3801604.

60. Di Ciaula, A. (2018). Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 221 (3): 367–375.

61. Simkó, M. & Mattsson, M. (2019). 5G wireless communication and health effects—A pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (18): 3406.

62. Karipidis, K. & Mate, R. & Urban, D. & Tinker, R. & Wood, A. (2021). 5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 31 (4): 585–605.

63. Weller, S. et al. (2023). Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz” by Karipidis et al. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 33 (1): 17–20.

64. Hardell, L. & Nilsson, M. (2024). Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation. Reviews on Environmental Health 2024. Published online by De Gruyter June 19, 2024.

65. Wang, X. et al. (2024). Effects of radiofrequency field from 5G communication on fecal microbiome and metabolome profiles in mice. Scientific Reports 14 (1): 3571.

66. Weller, S. & McCredden, J. (2024). Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative. Frontiers in Public Health 11: 1339513.

67. Panagopoulos, D. & Chrousos, G. (2019). Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk. Science of the Total Environment 667: 255–262.

68. ​​International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2020). Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics 118 (5): 483–524.