The Environmental Health Trust is leading the way in the fight to expose the health risks of wireless technology.

They are taking legal action against the FCC regarding the outdated wireless radiation emission limits.

Please consider supporting this organization.


From the FCC Website:

"...there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radio-frequency (RF) energy,"

The FCC regulations that always get trotted out when discussing health issues ONLY cover levels where the affected tissue is HEATED (ionizing radiation).

Smart meters (and many other devices) emit

non-ionizing radiation. There is NO FEDERAL STANDARD covering the effects of this kind of radio-frequency energy.

Update: (see new info below at "April 2018.")

Smart meters, cell phones, cordless phones and wi-fi all use the same frequency range to work. So, the same health concerns exist for all.

  • People will claim there is no scientific evidence showing the harmful effects of wireless technology. Here is a list of 200 studies that beg to differ.
  • fMRI brain scans show the differences in wireless-sensitive individuals' brains.

        The science can be found here.
  • 5G is the latest crazy wireless idea out there. If you have health concerns from too much RF, especially in residential areas, chech out
  • The EMF Safety Network has compiled an excellent summary of WORLDWIDE concerns about RF health risks.
  • Here is a recent article covering the scientific evidence and recent back-pedaling by the CDC.
  • Here is engineer Jeromy Johnson's TEDx talk on wireless technology and human health.
  • Click here for a PDF explaining Radio Frequency Sickness.
  • Click here for a Word doc on the Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Sickness.

The Cellular Phone Task Force is dedicated to halting the expansion of wireless technology because it cannot be made safe.

A new documentary about wireless health hazards is complete.

Click here to go to the web site.


Dr. Olle Johansson has been a pioneer in the reasearch of human sensitivity to RF and magnetic fields. He has recently made his early work available in electronic format.

Here is the letter from Dr. Johansson to Angela Tsiang ( a collegue of Dafnia Tachover, the founder of We Are The Evidence - WATE).

Dear Angela,

Many persons have - over the years - asked for copies of some of my early papers. Unfortunately, I have not had them, up til now, in a scanned electronic format, but now I have.

So in the following four e-mails (labeled "About some early papers, part 1-4), I will send you a total of 15 papers and conference abstracts, starting with this e-mail. To not overload your computer, I will send them in packages of 3-4 papers at each time.

Please, share them as widely as you can - they are genuine examples and witnesses of what was found and discussed in those early days when the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity still was called "electrical allergy", "electrosupersensitivity" or "screen dermatitis", when the electrohypersensitive persons were referred to - by physicians, dentists, politicians, civil servants, and other experts, none of whom had ever investigated the EHS persons, and rarely even met one - as “old crones in the throes of the menopause”, “the poorly educated”, "the very well educated", “hypochondriacs”, “radiation ladies”, or victims of union-driven fears, mass media-based psychoses, imagination phenomena, Pavlovian conditioning, techno-stress alterations, etc., and when the idea of a harmful wireless, radiation-based, society still was in it's complete infancy. Biological effects by artificial EMFs, leading up to health issues, were most often harshly ridiculed and scientists pointing to their possible existence were slandered and bullied.

As you know, in these and others papers, we did find very important alterations and effects, in conjunction with such artificial EMFs and corresponding gadgets and equipments, so soon the official funding was reduced, finally to be entirely stopped, and never to occur again.

With my very best regards
Yours sincerely

(Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm

Dr. Johansson is preparing for retirement now. Thank you for all your work helping to expose the dangers of wireless technology.

Here are the documents from his early work:

Doc1   Doc2   Doc3   Doc4   Doc5   Doc6   Doc7   Doc8

Doc9   Doc10 Doc11 Doc12 Doc13 Doc14 Doc15


April 2018.

New studies to update the effects of RF radiation on living organisms. (Hat tip to A. Tsiang)

Safety Standards for Wireless Devices

There are no national safety standards in the US for safe levels of   wireless radiation exposure.  Cell phones were allowed for sale in the US by the FDA before any market safety testing was done.

The current FCC exposure limits are only guidelines that the FCC has adopted from industry, and to date safety standards have not yet been set. In the FCC’s own words, “there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy" .

So the FDA commissioned the US NTP (National Toxicology Program) in the 1990s to do a study on cell phone radiation to determine if there are health effects

Decades later, this $25 million NTP animal study is finally undergoing peer review right now, and the peer review panel has voted that there is "clear evidence of carcinogenic activity" from cell phone radiation on March 28, 2018. See below for more details.

This vote could lead to changes in cell phone radiation exposure limits and the World Health Organization upgrading its current classification of radio-frequency radiation from a class 2B "possible carcinogen" to a higher category (higher categories are class 2A "probable carcinogen" or class 1 "known carcinogen")

(The information below was compiled from Kate Kheel, Dafna Tachover, and Joel Moskowitz.)

Following the thorough and investigative report on the history of the wireless industry obfuscating the science on the health effects of wireless
by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie published on March 29, 2018,

"How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout"

There has been some very excellent follow-up press coverage:

(after watching these interviews you will see that Mark Hertsgaard is extremely well informed on this subject. He has done his research on the history wireless industry and has interviewed George Carlo, Henry Lai, Lennart Hardell and refers everyone to read more of the scientific research at Environmental Health Trust )

1) Democracy Now’s interview of investigative journalist Mark Hertsgaard

Excellent 10-minute video, Part 1:

Excellent 20-minute video, Part 2:

2) Radio Interview of Mark Hertsgaard, Jerry Phillips (biochemist and director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs),
featuring Joel Moskowitz, Theodora Scarato at Environmental Health Trust, and Cecelia Doucette. "The Connection Between Cellphones And Cancer"
on WBUR, April 5, 2018 (WBUR is Boston's NPR News Station) With Jane Clayson

48 minute program:


From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US government agency that conducted the National Toxicology Program studies)

NTP cell phone studies — experts recommend elevated conclusions
By Virginia Guidry, Environmental Factors/NIEHS Online News, April 2018

Bucher cautioned that the findings tell us that we should take a closer look, but they should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage.

A panel of external scientific experts met March 26-28 at NIEHS and recommended that some National Toxicology Program (NTP) conclusions be changed to indicate stronger levels of evidence that cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) caused tumors in rats.

The panel agreed with NTP conclusions that there was little indication of RFR-related health problems in mice. The panel reviewed the conclusions of two draft technical reports, one in rats and one in mice, based on 10 years and $25 million of research.

“It was gratifying that the members of the expert panel unanimously praised the NTP cell phone studies as very well done, and vitally important research,” said NTP Senior Scientist John Bucher, Ph.D.

“They conducted a thorough review, engaged in spirited debate, and grappled with the same uncertainties as did the NTP staff.”

Bucher stressed that the goal of the study was to establish the potential health hazard of exposure to cell phone RFR. He said that to detect a potential effect, the rodents’ whole bodies were exposed to levels equal to and higher than the highest level permitted for local tissue exposure in cell phone emissions today.

Panel chair David Eaton, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, said NTP was clairvoyant for including in utero exposure long before this was commonly considered in toxicology.

Heart, brain, and adrenal tumors

Working from the NTP scale of clear evidence, which is graded as some evidence, equivocal evidence, and no evidence, the panel made several recommendations.

The experts recommended that tumors in tissues surrounding nerves in the hearts of male rats, called malignant schwannomas, be reclassified from some evidence to clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.

In female rats, they recommended reclassification of malignant schwannomas from no evidence to equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity. The panel agreed that there were unusual patterns of cardiomyopathy, or damage to heart tissue, in exposed male and female rats.

“When I look at these types of studies, I look for high-level signals that can infer mechanisms. I have more questions than answers, but the heart is clearly sending a signal in the rat studies, between the levels of cardiomyopathy and malignant tumors,” said panelist Rick Adler, D.V.M., Ph.D., senior director of discovery and regulatory pathology for GlaxoSmithKline.

The panel recommended that findings for a type of brain tumor, called malignant glioma, and a tumor in the adrenal gland, called pheochromocytoma, be reclassified as some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats.

Tissue changes and lower body weights

Blystone oversaw internal scientific reviews with NTP staff.

NTP researchers also looked for noncancerous health effects in rats and mice. The panel agreed that there were increases in damage to brain tissue in exposed male and female rats, which further supported the classifications of cancerous effects in the brain.

For several other tissues, including the prostate and pituitary glands, the panel agreed that tissue changes were equivocal, meaning it was unclear if any of these tumor increases were related to RFR.

NTP also reported lower body weights among newborn rats and their mothers, especially when exposed to high levels of RFR during pregnancy and lactation, but these animals later grew to normal size.

“I want to highlight that we don’t rely on one specific item for determining response,” said NTP toxicologist Chad Blystone, Ph.D. He explained that NTP staff review numerous factors when determining conclusions, including those listed below.

• Statistics.
• Dose-response relationship.
• Commonality of tumors and tissue changes.
• Comparison to concurrent and historical controls.
• Findings across sexes and species.

Most expensive, technically challenging studies

To conduct the studies, NTP worked with collaborators at the IT’IS Foundation to design special chambers that exposed rats and mice to different levels of RFR for up to two years, including exposure to pups while in the womb.

Myles Capstick, Ph.D., of the IT’IS Foundation explained that they wanted to expose the whole animals because they were not sure where health effects might occur. “We were aiming to expose as many tissues as possible, not mimic a phone next to the head,” said Capstick.

Exposure levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice. The low power level for rats was equal to the highest level permitted for local tissue exposures to cell phone emissions today. The animals were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off cycles that totaled more than 9 hours each day.

The studies used 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations that are still used in voice calls and texting in the United States. More recent 4G, 4G-LTE, and 5G networks for streaming video and downloading attachments use different cell phone signal frequencies and modulations than NTP used in these studies. Niels Kuster, Ph.D., of the IT’IS Foundation added that their studies of 4G technologies are very similar.

There were approximately 3,000 animals in the study, and pathologists examined 50 tissues in each animal to look for signs of cancer or other changes.

(Virginia Guidry, Ph.D., is a technical writer and public information specialist in the NIEHS Office of Communications and Public Liaison and a regular contributor to the Environmental Factor.)


Did you know that there are no national safety standards in the US for safe levels of wireless radiation exposure, and that cell phones were allowed for sale in the US by the FDA before any market safety testing was done?

It is true, even though cell phones were introduced for sale more than 20 years ago, children use them, and there are more cell phones in use in this country than there are people. (396 million subscribers in the US in 2016
while the population was 323 million in 2016.)

The current FCC exposure limits are only guidelines that the FCC has adopted from industry, and to date safety standards have not yet been set.

In the FCC’s own words, “there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy" .

So the FDA commissioned the US NTP (National Toxicology Program) in the 1990s to do a study on cell phone radiation to determine if there are health effects

Decades later, this $25 million NTP animal study is finally undergoing peer review right now.

There are 11 members of the peer review panel evaluating the study.
On March 28, 2018, they voted whether there was clear evidence, some evidence, equivocal evidence, or no evidence of carcinogenic activity from cell phone radiation in the following areas

(source: ):

[GSM modulation: 3G modulation used by AT&T and T-Mobile in the US]
CDMA modulation: 3G modulation used by Verizon and Sprint in the US]

"Clear Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity":

• malignant schwannoma in the heart for male rats for GSM and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR at 900 MHz

"Some Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity":

• malignant glioma in the brain for male rats for GSM and CDMA-modulated cell phone RFR at 900 MHz

• pheochromocytoma (benign, malignant, or complex combined) in the adrenal medulla for male rats for GSM modulated cell phone RFR at 900 MHz

Increases in Nonneoplastic Lesions

• in the heart, brain, and prostate gland of male rats occurred with exposures to GSM and CDMA cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

• in the heart, thyroid gland, and adrenal gland in female rats occurred with exposures to GSM cell phone RFR at 900 MHz

• in the brain in females exposed to CDMA cell phone RFR at 900 MHz.

Equivocal Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity:

• fibrosarcoma, sarcoma, or malignant fibrous histiocytoma in the skin.

• alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or carcinoma (combined) in the lung

• malignant lymphoma

• hepatoblastoma in the liver

• adenoma or carcinoma (combined) in the prostate gland

• benign or malignant granular cell tumors in the brain

• adenoma in the pars distalis of the pituitary gland

• pancreatic islet cell adenoma or carcinoma (combined).

• adenoma or carcinoma (combined) in the liver