This rat study examined acute (1-week) and chronic (10-week) exposure to 2100 MHz radiofrequency radiation (3G UMTS-like) and assessed auditory mismatch negativity (MMN) alongside biochemical and histological brain measures. The abstract reports that acute exposure was associated with reduced MMN-related electrophysiological parameters and changes in GluR2 and GFAP with observed brain ultrastructural alterations. Chronic exposure showed opposite protein trends and enhanced MMN parameters versus chronic controls, and lipid peroxidation was not significantly different.

RF Safe comments on a 2025 PNAS Nexus study (Jyoti et al., 2025) reporting no detectable changes in gene expression or methylation in 5G millimeter-wave–exposed human skin cells. The post argues that this “null” result does not indicate biological inertness, but instead supports the site’s proposed “dual-pillar” framework in which effects depend on cell-specific cofactor density and frequency-window/coupling conditions. It contrasts skin-cell findings with claims about rapid blood (RBC) effects from smartphone exposure, presenting this as consistent with differential susceptibility across tissues.

RF Safe presents the “Herzification / Bioelectric Fidelity Hypothesis,” arguing that modern RF/EMF exposure has rapidly altered the human electromagnetic environment and may degrade biological electrical signaling (“bioelectric fidelity”). The post frames this as an “evidence-anchored hypothesis” that could help explain a wide range of outcomes (e.g., cancer, infertility, ADHD-like traits, some autism phenotypes, emotional dysregulation), while acknowledging it is not definitive proof. It also cites Heinrich Hertz’s illness as a suggestive historical anecdote and references proposed non-thermal interaction mechanisms involving voltage-gated ion channels.

RF Safe’s “Executive Summary” argues that non-thermal radiofrequency/microwave exposures from modern wireless technologies can disrupt biological processes, proposing ion-channel voltage-sensor interference as a key mechanism leading to oxidative stress and inflammation. It cites animal studies (NTP and Ramazzini) and claims a WHO-commissioned 2025 systematic review found “high certainty” evidence of increased cancer in animals, and it points to epidemiological trends as suggestive. The piece also criticizes U.S. regulation as focused on thermal effects, highlighting FCC limits dating to 1996 and referencing a 2021 U.S. court ruling that faulted the FCC for not addressing non-thermal evidence.

RF Safe argues that current RF-EMF exposure standards are overly focused on thermal effects and should be replaced with a “post-thermal” regulatory paradigm that accounts for claimed non-thermal biological impacts. The piece cites a mix of mechanistic hypotheses, animal studies, epidemiology, and legal/policy developments (e.g., the 2021 D.C. Circuit EHT v. FCC decision) to support a precautionary reform agenda. It also asserts that recent WHO work in 2025 strengthens the case for tumor-related risks, though these characterizations are presented as the author’s interpretation rather than independently verified within the feed item.

This RF Safe article argues that U.S. radiofrequency (RF) exposure policy is outdated, emphasizing that FCC limits adopted in 1996 are based on preventing tissue heating and do not address alleged non-thermal biological effects. It claims responsibility for protecting public health from electronic product radiation was effectively ceded from health agencies to the FCC, and that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act limits local governments from opposing wireless infrastructure on health grounds if FCC limits are met. The piece cites epidemiology, cell studies, and animal studies (notably the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute) to argue that evidence has accumulated and regulation should be updated, but it presents these points in an advocacy framing rather than as a balanced review.

RF Safe argues that an FDA-authorized therapeutic radiofrequency device (TheraBionic P1) demonstrates biologically meaningful “non-thermal” RF effects, and contrasts this with consumer wireless regulation that it says is based primarily on heating (SAR) limits set in 1996. The post frames this as a regulatory and legal gap, citing the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act and Telecommunications Act Section 704 as factors limiting local and public-health oversight. It also references several epidemiology and animal studies (e.g., Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, IARC 2011 classification, and the U.S. NTP rodent studies) to support the claim that non-thermal effects and health risks warrant stronger scrutiny, though the article’s presentation is advocacy-oriented.

RF Safe presents a mechanistic hypothesis that low-frequency electromagnetic fields (LF-EMFs) can disrupt the timing (“fidelity”) of voltage-gated ion channel activity, creating bioelectric “phase noise” that could alter calcium signaling and gene transcription involved in immune function. The article further argues that this mistiming may impair mitochondrial function, increasing reactive oxygen species and inflammatory feedback loops, potentially contributing to immune dysregulation. It also proposes a policy/engineering response focused on reducing indoor RF exposure and promoting alternatives such as LiFi, while citing animal and epidemiology findings as suggestive but not definitive support for the broader framework.

This review/technical note discusses whether chronic EMF exposure, mainly from mobile phones and wireless devices, should be reconsidered as a possible risk factor for oral cancer/OSCC. It highlights biological plausibility and reports from pilot cytogenetic and laboratory studies, plus limited epidemiological observations, suggesting increased micronucleus formation and altered stress responses in buccal mucosal cells among long-term users. The authors emphasize that a direct causal link to OSCC is not established and call for more comprehensive research.

This review discusses epidemiological and mechanistic reports linking EMF exposure with oxidative stress and disease risk, and introduces an Electromagnetic Pathogenesis (EMP) conceptual model. The model proposes that non-ionizing EMFs increase mitochondrial electron leakage via electron tunneling, raising free radical production and oxidative stress. The authors argue oxidative stress is a primary mechanism connecting EMF exposure to cancer, cardiovascular, neurodevelopmental/neurodegenerative diseases, and behavioral/reproductive effects, and suggest reducing exposure may lower risk.

This occupational study compared oxidative stress biomarkers across four groups: control, noise-only, ELF-EMF-only, and combined noise plus ELF-EMF exposure in power plant workers. The combined exposure group showed higher lipid peroxidation (MDA) and lower antioxidant-related measures (GSH and TAC) versus controls, while SOD activity was reduced in the noise-only and combined groups. The authors interpret these findings as evidence linking concurrent noise and ELF-EMF exposure with increased oxidative stress and call for further research and occupational safety guidance.

This review compares two epidemiologic studies of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) exposure among military personnel with overlapping patient groups. One study reported a statistically significant increase in cancer among exposed individuals, while the other did not, which the review attributes to a smaller sample size. The review highlights similar cancer patterns across both studies, including a high proportion of hematolymphoid cancers and earlier onset among exposed individuals, and interprets these similarities as evidence of carcinogenic effects.

This randomized controlled animal study examined chronic 35.5 GHz millimeter wave exposure in male Wistar rats (2 hours/day for 60 days) compared with control and sham groups. The exposed group showed reduced sperm count and viability along with testicular histopathological changes. Oxidative stress markers shifted toward increased lipid peroxidation and reduced antioxidant defenses, and comet assay results indicated increased DNA damage.

This scoping review and evidence map (PRISMA-ScR) summarizes over 500 studies on RF-EMF exposure and genotoxicity across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research. The authors report a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported under real-world/pulsed/GSM talk-mode conditions and longer exposures. They conclude that DNA damage has been observed at exposure levels below ICNIRP limits and recommend precautionary measures and updates to guidelines to address potential non-thermal effects.

This animal study exposed mice to 2.45 GHz electromagnetic fields daily for up to 5 months and assessed liver effects using serum tests, lipidomics, histology, and single-cell/spatiotemporal transcriptomics. The authors report that hepatic cell types differed in sensitivity, with hepatocytes, endothelial cells, and monocytes showing notable transcriptomic disruptions. Reported changes involved lipid metabolism and immune regulation and were spatially enriched in peri-portal liver regions. The authors frame the findings as evidence of significant biological impacts on the liver from long-term EMF exposure.

This animal study exposed rats to Wi‑Fi waves for 7 hours/day for 2 months and assessed sperm parameters, serum testosterone, and testicular/epididymal pathology, with and without coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). The authors report that Wi‑Fi exposure was linked to worse sperm parameters, lower testosterone, and adverse testicular pathology. CoQ10 supplementation during exposure was reported to mitigate these changes compared with Wi‑Fi exposure alone.

This review discusses the rapid deployment of 5G and the associated debate about potential human health impacts from EMF exposure, particularly at 3.5–26 GHz including millimeter waves. It emphasizes limited published studies in these exposure ranges and highlights EU-funded initiatives and research consortia aimed at closing knowledge gaps. The authors state that guidelines are generally considered adequate at present, but argue that uncertainties—especially regarding long-term exposure—support continued research and precautionary approaches.

This paper is a commentary reviewing how Bradford Hill’s epidemiological criteria can be applied to multidisciplinary evidence on RF-EMF exposure and adverse health effects. It reports that systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area often reach substantially different conclusions, and argues that key weaknesses in primary studies—especially exposure measurement error and insufficient time for long-latency tumors—help explain the divergence. The author suggests these limitations may cause underestimation of potential causation if the associations are truly causal, and calls for independent guidelines to improve future epidemiological research quality.

This occupational epidemiology study used machine learning to evaluate whether workplace exposures (including magnetic and electric fields, vibration, noise, and heat stress) predict male reproductive indicators in 80 workers. The models and explainable AI outputs highlighted magnetic and electric field exposures and age as key predictors linked to lower free testosterone. The authors also report a 10-year forecast identifying electric field exposure as the most important long-term risk factor.

This cross-sectional epidemiologic study enrolled 100 employees of an electricity company to assess whether occupational low-frequency electromagnetic field exposure is associated with cataract development. Cataract frequency was higher in exposed versus non-exposed groups, and nuclear opacity grading differed significantly between groups. Within exposed workers, nuclear and posterior subcapsular cataract grades were associated with longer work experience, suggesting occupational exposure may be a risk factor, particularly for nuclear cataracts.

This animal study exposed adult male rats to 2.45 GHz Wi‑Fi from an active router for 4 or 24 hours daily over eight weeks and assessed reproductive organ histology and sperm parameters. The authors report histological changes in testes and epididymis, multifocal atypical hyperplasia in seminal vesicles, reduced seminiferous tubule diameter, and reduced spermatogenesis index in exposed groups. Sperm concentration decreased in both exposed groups, motility decreased in the 4-hour group, and viability increased in the 24-hour group, leading to an overall interpretation of potential reproductive risk under the studied conditions.

This conference abstract reports a pilot matched case-control study examining whether carrying a cellphone below the waist is associated with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC). The authors report higher EOCRC likelihood among those who carried phones below the waist, with the strongest association for ipsilateral carrying (same side as the tumor) and high cumulative hours. Details on exposure measurement, confounding control, and full statistical reporting are not provided in the abstract.

This letter critiques the WHO-sponsored systematic review by Karipidis et al. (2024) on RF-EMF exposure and cancer risk. The authors argue the review has serious methodological and interpretative flaws, including issues with study selection and data analysis. They contend that the review’s conclusion of "no clear evidence" may be misleading and should not be used as a basis for health policy or safety guidelines.