Biological Regulatory Effects Associated with Exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Frequencies & 5G

Biological Regulatory Effects Associated with Exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Frequencies & 5G

April 28, 2020

Biological Regulatory Effects Associated with Exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Frequencies & 5G

James Odell, OMD, ND, L.Ac.

Mobile communication has exponentially grown worldwide over the last few decades due to an advancing revolution in wireless technology. This revolution began with 1G- the first generation and has advanced now to 5G- the fifth generation. The dependency on wireless technologies has greatly increased public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. Currently, throughout many urban and rural areasa new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G pulsed wavelengths is being implemented. Research is surfacing that the addition of this added pulsed, high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome from both a physical and mental health perspective.

The following is a brief description of the advancement in mobile technology:

  • 1G – Analog- Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS) was commercially introduced in the 1980’s and operated with voice only at 800 MHz with a continuous wave signal.

  • 2G – Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), are variants of 2G systems, introduced in the 1990’s, providing text messaging, multimedia messaging and internet access. These were used in the first digital cell phones. Frequencies are a combination of 850 and 1900 or 900 and 1800 MHz. (C.L. Russell Environmental Research 165 (2018) 484–495 486)

  • 3G – Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (UMTS)- Introduced in 1998 with broadband features providing data transfer, mobile internet and video calling. There are dozens of frequency bands available in the 800–900 MHz range and the 1700–2100 MHz range depending on the carrier.

  • 4G – Long Term Evolution (LTE) –Was released in 2008 with higher frequency broadband supporting faster web access, gaming, video conferencing, and HD Mobile TV. These frequencies are in the 700 MHz, 1700/2100 MHz and the 2500–2690 MHz range.

  • 5G- Device-to-Device Communication, Proposed for expansion of the Internet of Things. Uses wavelengths from 30 to 95 GHz and possibly up to 300 GHz.

The study of the biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy at radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) frequencies is a mature scientific discipline. At present, there are well over 15,000 papers in the scientific literature that report the results of laboratory studies of exposed animals, humans, in vitro preparations, and other relevant studies. As can be imagined, the quality of the studies is uneven, ranging from poor and incomplete to excellent. Since many experimental maneuvers cannot be performed on human subjects, studies of animal subjects must often be substituted. Most studies that report biological effects have involved acute (minutes to hours) RF/MW exposures of animal subjects or in vitro preparations. Due to economic and technical concerns, only a few studies have investigated the consequences of long-term exposure of animals to controlled RF/MW fields.


Research and Controversy


The controversy over health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from commonly used wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers and cell tower infrastructure remains problematic. Radiofrequency research in North America and many countries is poorly funded and even when a study is thorough it seems to not answer the question of long-term safety or provide appropriate precautionary limits.1


In 2011, the World Health Organization declared cellphones as a Class 2B: ‘Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’, meaning the technology may be linked to cancer based on a thorough analysis of current scientific evidence. Some researchers feel this listing should be changed to a Group 2A: ‘Probably Carcinogenic to Humans’ or even to Group 1: ‘Carcinogenic to Humans’ classification.2, 3


Microwave radiation is silent and invisible, but with continuous exposure, cells are adversely affected. These extremely high and pulsed frequencies have been shown to cause disturbance in cell-to-cell communication. As cellular communication is vital to human bioregulation, studies have shown exposure to these pulsed microwave frequencies have a fundamental impact on biological processes in our body with the potential following detrimental effects:


Damage to reproductive health 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

Damage to proteins and cellular membranes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Increased oxidative stress 14, 15, 16

DNA damage and alterations in gene expression in some human cell types 17, 18, 19

Alteration of the blood-brain barrier system 20, 21, 22

Altered electrical brain activity and cognition 23, 24, 25, 26

Risk of ocular damage – cataracts and lens toxicity 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Increased behavioral problems in children 36, 37, 38, 39

Risks of some cancers 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46


Additionally, damage goes well beyond humans, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant, wildlife and other biosystems. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 The reported global reduction in bees and other insects is plausibly linked to the increased radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in the environment. Honeybees are among the species that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, for navigation. When the honeybee suffers, so does agriculture, and so, potentially do all who depend on the bounty that comes from animal pollinated flowering plants from which we derive many of our most delicious and health-giving fruits and vegetables. Additionally, several million birds of 230 species die each year from collisions with telecommunications masts in the US during migration. Accidents happen mainly in the night, in fog, or bad weather, when birds might be using the earth’s magnetic field for navigation and could be seriously disoriented by the microwave radiation from telecommunication masts.


Review of Radiofrequency/Microwave and 5G Technology


Mobile phones, antennae of mobile towers, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, tablets and other such wireless equipment work on frequencies ranging from 700 Megahertz (700 million hertz) to 2.8 Gigahertz (2.8 billion hertz), and the new arrival of 5G operates within the extreme-high frequency range of 30 GHz to 300 GHz. Radio frequency is anything between 3Hz and 300 GHz but is subdivided depending on the actual frequency. Microwave is the general term used to describe radio frequency waves that start from ultra-high frequency to extremely high frequency which covers all frequencies between 300 Megahertz to 300 GHz. Lower frequencies are referred to as radio waves while higher frequencies are called millimeter waves.


In general, the longer the wavelength the longer it travels, and the farther apart broadcast stations are placed. The 5G short higher frequency millimeter wavelengths travel shorter distances (a few hundred meters); thus, to achieve a seamless integrated wireless system the “small cell” antenna needs to be installed about every 250 meters. Although antennas can be as small as a few millimeters, “small cell” antenna arrays may consist of dozens or even hundreds of antenna elements. Small cells communicate wirelessly with macrocell towers, other small cells, and individual mobile devices. Certain small cells connect directly to fiber cables while others provide support to wireless mesh networks that improve wireless coverage.


The all-powerful telecommunication industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state and federal level to expedite the deployment of this fifth-generation technology. The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the installation of cellular antennas in the public “right-of-way.” Cell antennas may be installed on public utility poles every 10-20 houses in urban areas. According to the industry, as many as 50,000 new cell sites will be required in California alone and at 800,000 or more new cell sites nationwide. The added frequencies and proximity of small cell antenna in this dense network are a valid concern for residents. Although many major cities and newspapers have opposed this legislation, the potential health risks from the proliferation of new cellular antenna sites have been ignored.


These cell antennas will expose the population to new sources of radio frequency radiation including the ultra-high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs). The characteristics of MMWs are different than the “low-band” (i.e., microwave) frequencies which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries. MMWs can transmit large amounts of data over short distances. The transmissions can be directed into narrow beams that travel by line-of-sight and can move data at high rates (e.g., up to 10 billion bits per second) with short lags (or latencies) between transmissions.54


Millimeter waves (MMWs) are mostly absorbed within 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Thus, the skin or near-surface zones of tissues are the primary targets of the radiation. Since skin contains capillaries and nerve endings, MMW bio-effects may be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system.


Thermal (or heating) effects occur when the power density of the waves is above 5–10 mW/cm2. Such high-intensity MMWs act on human skin and the cornea in a dose-dependent manner, beginning with heat sensation followed by pain and physical damage at higher exposures. Temperature elevation can impact the growth, morphology and metabolism of cells, induce production of free radicals, and damage DNA. The maximum permissible exposure that the FCC permits for the general public is 1.0 mW/cm2 averaged over 30 minutes for frequencies that range from 1.5 GHz to 100 GHz. This guideline was adopted in 1996 to protect humans from acute exposure to thermal levels of radiofrequency radiation. However, the guidelines were not designed to protect us from nonthermal risks that may occur with prolonged or long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation.


With the deployment of fifth generation wireless infrastructure, much of the US and numerous other cities worldwide will be exposed to MMWs for the first time on a continuous basis. Due to FCC guidelines, these exposures will likely be of low intensity, at first. Hence, the health consequences of 5G exposure will be limited to non-thermal effects produced by prolonged exposure to MMWs in conjunction with exposure to low- and mid-band radiofrequency radiation.


Active Denial System


Another interestingly important consideration is that the Department of Defense sponsored studies in the late 1990s and early 2000s looking at the use of millimeter wavelengths as a non-lethal weapon (now called the Active Denial System).55, 56 This use of microwave was designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. Thus, the military’s active denial technology employs very high-frequency millimeter wavelengths, above 94 GHz, to produce an intense burning sensation that penetrates the skin and stops when the transmitter is switched off or when the individual moves out of the beam. Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subject. There are reports that Russia and China are developing their own versions of the Active Denial System.57




Industry and governments have turned a blind eye and are operating on the past assumption that there is and will be no health risks from this 5G advancement.58, 59 Consequently, this policy is largely been based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), published in 1998 (Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz).60 This recommendation limits exposure in the 5G range to a power density of 10W/m2 for the general public and to 50W/m2 for occupational exposure (“Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300GHz).


It should be realized that biological effects of a prolonged or chronic MMW exposure of the whole body or a large body area have never been investigated. Safety limits for these types of exposures are based solely on predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating, but in view of recent studies this approach is not necessarily adequate. Common wisdom presented in the literature and media is that, if there are adverse impacts resulting from high-band 5G, the main impacts will be focused on near-surface phenomena, such as skin cancer, cataracts, and other skin conditions. However, there is evidence that biological responses to millimeter-wave irradiation can be initiated within the skin, and the subsequent systemic signaling in the skin can result in physiological effects on the nervous system, heart, and immune system.61


Since little research has been conducted on the health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs, widespread deployment of 5G or 5th generation wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse impacts on the public’s health. Considering the current science, lack of relevant exposure standards based on known biological effects and data gaps in research, we need to reduce our exposure to radiofrequency radiation wherever technically possible. Laws or policies which restrict the full integrity of science and the scientific community with regards to health and environmental effects of wireless technologies should be changed to enable unbiased, objective and precautionary science to drive necessary public policies and regulation.



  1.  Wyde, Michael, 2016. NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation-Slide Presentation. National Toxicology Program. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, BioEM2016 Meeting, Ghent, Belgium. 〈〉
  2. Morgan, L. Lloyd, Anthony B. Miller, Annie Sasco, and Devra Lee Davis. “Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A).” International journal of oncology 46, no. 5 (2015): 1865-1871.
  3. Sage, Cindy, and David O. Carpenter. “Key scientific evidence and public health policy recommendations.” The BioInitiative Report (2012).
  4. Adams, J.A., Galloway, T.S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S.C., Mathews, F., 2014. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 70, 106–112.
  5. Blank, M., Goodman, R., 2009. Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiol., Electromagn. Fields (EMF) Spec. Issue 16, 71–78. pathophys.2009.01.006.
  6. Darbandi, Mahsa, Sara Darbandi, Ashok Agarwal, Ralf Henkle, and Mohammad Reza Sadeghi. “The effects of exposure to low frequency electromagnetic fields on male fertility.” Altern Ther Health Med 23 (2017).
  7. Dasdag, Suleyman, Muzaffer Taş, Mehmet Zulkuf Akdag, and Korkut Yegin. “Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions.” Electromagnetic biology and medicine 34, no. 1 (2015): 37-42.
  8. Erogul, Osman, Emin Oztas, Ibrahim Yildirim, Tayfun Kir, Emin Aydur, Gokhan Komesli, Hasan Cem Irkilata, Mehmet Kemal Irmak, and Ahmet Fuat Peker. “Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study.” Archives of medical research 37, no. 7 (2006): 840-
  9. Panagopoulos, Dimitris J. “Mobile Telephony EMFs Effects on Insect Ovarian Cells. The Necessity for Real Exposures Bioactivity Assessment. The Key Role of Polarization, and the “Ion Forced-Oscillation Mechanism”.” In Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins, pp. 1-48. Springer, Cham, 2017.
  10. Volkow, Nora D., Dardo Tomasi, Gene-Jack Wang, Paul Vaska, Joanna S. Fowler, Frank Telang, Dave Alexoff, Jean Logan, and Christopher Wong. “Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism.” Jama 305, no. 8 (2011): 808-813.
  11. Grigoriev, Yury G., Oleg A. Grigoriev, Alexander A. Ivanov, Antonina M. Lyaginskaya, Anton V. Merkulov, Natalia B. Shagina, Vyacheslav N. Maltsev et al. “Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results.” Bioelectromagnetics 31, no. 8 (2010): 589-602.
  12. Sage, Cindy, and David O. Carpenter. “Public health implications of wireless technologies.” Pathophysiology 16, no. 2-3 (2009): 233-246.
  13. Singh, Pragya. “Wireless radiation: a threat to human health.” International Journal of Technical Research and Applications 1, no. 2 (2013): 13-19.
  14. Megha, Kanu, Pravin Suryakantrao Deshmukh, Basu Dev Banerjee, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Rafat Ahmed, and Mahesh Pandurang Abegaonkar. “Low intensity microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain.” Neurotoxicology 51 (2015): 158-165.
  15. Yakymenko, Igor, Olexandr Tsybulin, Evgeniy Sidorik, Diane Henshel, Olga Kyrylenko, and Sergiy Kyrylenko. “Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.” Electromagnetic biology and medicine 35, no. 2 (2016): 186-202.
  16. Yao, Ke, Wei Wu, KaiJun Wang, Shuang Ni, PanPan Ye, YiBo Yu, Juan Ye, and LiXia Sun. “Electromagnetic noise inhibits radiofrequency radiation-induced DNA damage and reactive oxygen species increase in human lens epithelial cells.” Molecular vision 14 (2008): 964.
  17. Remondini, Daniel, Reetta Nylund, Jukka Reivinen, Florence Poulletier de Gannes, Bernard Veyret, Isabelle Lagroye, Emmanuelle Haro et al. “Gene expression changes in human cells after exposure to mobile phone microwaves.” Proteomics 6, no. 17 (2006): 4745-4754.
  18. Dasdag, Suleyman, Mehmet Zulkuf Akdag, Mehmet Emin Erdal, Nurten Erdal, Ozlem Izci Ay, Mustafa Ertan Ay, Senay Gorucu Yilmaz, Bahar Tasdelen, and Korkut Yegin. “Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue.” International journal of radiation biology 91, no. 7 (2015): 555-561.
  19. Zothansiama, Mary Zosangzuali, Miriam Lalramdinpuii, and Ganesh Chandra Jagetia. “Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.” Electromagnetic biology and medicine 36, no. 3 (2017): 295-305.
  20. Nittby, Henrietta, Arne Brun, Jacob Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren, Bertil RR Persson, and Leif G. Salford. “Increased blood–brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone.” Pathophysiology 16, no. 2-3 (2009): 103-112.
  21. Oscar, Kenneth J., and T. Daryl Hawkins. “Microwave alteration of the blood-brain barrier system of rats.” Brain research 126, no. 2 (1977): 281-293.
  22. Tang, Jun, Yuan Zhang, Liming Yang, Qianwei Chen, Liang Tan, Shilun Zuo, Hua Feng, Zhi Chen, and Gang Zhu. “Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats.” Brain research 1601 (2015): 92-101.
  23. Regel, Sabine J., Gilberte Tinguely, Jürgen Schuderer, Martin Adam, Niels Kuster, HANS‐PETER LANDOLT, and Peter Achermann. “Pulsed radio‐frequency electromagnetic fields: dose‐dependent effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance.” Journal of sleep research 16, no. 3 (2007): 253-258.
  24. Deshmukh, Pravin Suryakantrao, Namita Nasare, Kanu Megha, Basu Dev Banerjee, Rafat Sultana Ahmed, Digvijay Singh, Mahesh Pandurang Abegaonkar, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, and Pramod Kumari Mediratta. “Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation.” International journal of toxicology 34, no. 3 (2015): 284-290.
  25. Luria, Roy, Ilan Eliyahu, Ronen Hareuveny, Menachem Margaliot, and Nachshon Meiran. “Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: the influence of exposure side and time.” Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association 30, no. 3 (2009): 198-204.
  26. Eliyahu, Ilan, Roy Luria, Ronen Hareuveny, Menachem Margaliot, Nachshon Meiran, and Gad Shani. “Effects of radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellular telephones on the cognitive functions of humans.” Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association 27, no. 2 (2006): 119-126.
  27. Foster, Mark R., Esther S. Ferri, and Gary J. Hagan. “Dosimetric study of microwave cataractogenesis.” Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, The Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine, The European Bioelectromagnetics Association 7, no. 2 (1986): 129-140.
  28. Van Ummersen, Claire A., and Frances C. Cogan. “Effects of microwave radiation on the lens epithelium in the rabbit eye.” Archives of Ophthalmology 94, no. 5 (1976): 828-834.
  29. Ye, Juan, Ke Yao, Deqiang Lu, Renyi Wu, and Huai Jiang. “Low power density microwave radiation induced early changes in rabbit lens epithelial cells.” Chinese medical journal 114, no. 12 (2001): 1290-1294.
  30. Yu, Y., and K. Yao. “Non-thermal cellular effects of low-power microwave radiation on the lens and lens epithelial cells.” Journal of International Medical Research 38, no. 3 (2010): 729-736.
  31. Yao, Ke, Kai Jun Wang, Zhao Hui Sun, Jian Tan, Wen Xu, Li Jun Zhu, and De Qiang Lu. “Low power microwave radiation inhibits the proliferation of rabbit lens epithelial cells by upregulating P27Kip1 expression.” Mol Vis 10, no. 25 (2004): 138-143.
  32. Cutz, Andrew. “Effects of microwave radiation on the eye: the occupational health perspective.” Lens and eye toxicity research 6, no. 1-2 (1989): 379-386.
  33. Yu, Yibo, Ke Yao, Wei Wu, Kaijun Wang, Guangdi Chen, and Deqiang Lu. “Effects of exposure to 1.8 GHz radiofrequency field on the expression of Hsps and phosphorylation of MAPKs in human lens epithelial cells.” Cell Research 18, no. 12 (2008): 1233-1235.
  34. Vignal, R., D. Crouzier, V. Dabouis, and J. C. Debouzy. “Effets des ondes hyperfréquences des téléphones mobiles et des radars sur l’œil Effects of mobile phones and radar radiofrequencies on the eye.” Pathologie Biologie 57 (2009): 503-508.
  35. Carpenter, Russell L., and Clair A. Van Ummersen. “The action of microwave radiation on the eye.” Journal of Microwave Power 3, no. 1 (1968): 3-19.
  36. Divan, Hozefa A., Leeka Kheifets, Carsten Obel, and Jørn Olsen. “Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children.” Epidemiology (2008): 523-529.
  37. Divan, Hozefa A., Leeka Kheifets, Carsten Obel, and Jørn Olsen. “Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.” J Epidemiol Community Health 66, no. 6 (2012): 524-529.
  38. Leung, S., R. J. Croft, Raymond J. McKenzie, Steve Iskra, Beata Silber, N. R. Cooper, Barry O’Neill et al. “Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on performance and electrophysiology in adolescents, young adults and older adults.” Clinical Neurophysiology 122, no. 11 (2011): 2203-2216.
  39. Sudan, Madhuri, Jorn Olsen, Oyebuchi A. Arah, Carsten Obel, and Leeka Kheifets. “Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children.” J Epidemiol Community Health 70, no. 12 (2016): 1207-1213.
  40. Carlberg, Michael, and Lennart Hardell. “Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation.” BioMed research international 2017 (2017).
  41. Coureau, Gaëlle, Ghislaine Bouvier, Pierre Lebailly, Pascale Fabbro-Peray, Anne Gruber, Karen Leffondre, Jean-Sebastien Guillamo et al. “Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study.” Occup Environ Med 71, no. 7 (2014): 514-522.
  42. Hardell, Lennart, and Michael Carlberg. “Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma–Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009.” Pathophysiology 22, no. 1 (2015): 1-13.
  43. Hardell, Lennart, and Michael Carlberg. “Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones.” Reviews on Environmental Health 28, no. 2-3 (2013): 97-106.
  44. Hardell, Lennart, Michael Carlberg, and Kjell Hansson Mild. “Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases.” Pathophysiology 16, no. 2-3 (2009): 113-122.
  45. Markovà, Eva, Lars OG Malmgren, and Igor Y. Belyaev. “Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: possible mechanistic link to cancer risk.” Environmental health perspectives 118, no. 3 (2010): 394-399.
  46. Wyde, Michael, Mark Cesta, Chad Blystone, Susan Elmore, Paul Foster, Michelle Hooth, Grace Kissling et al. “Report of partial findings from the national toxicology program carcinogenesis studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure).” BioRxiv (2018): 055699.
  47. Sivani, S., and D. Sudarsanam. “Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem-a review.” Biology and Medicine 4, no. 4 (2012): 202.
  48. Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse influence of radio frequency background on trembling aspen seedlings: Preliminary observations.” International Journal of Forestry Research 2010 (2010).
  49. Doyon, P. R. “Are the microwaves killing the insects, frogs, and birds? And are we next.” (2008).
  50. Sharma, Ved Parkash, and Neelima R. Kumar. “Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations.” Current Science(Bangalore) 98, no. 10 (2010): 1376-1378.
  51. Cammaerts, Marie-Claire, Zoheir Rachidi, François Bellens, and Philippe De Doncker. “Food collection and response to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation.” Electromagnetic biology and medicine 32, no. 3 (2013): 315-332.
  52. Favre, Daniel. “Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping.” Apidologie 42, no. 3 (2011): 270-279.
  53. Harst, Wolfgang, Jochen Kuhn, and Hermann Stever. “1 Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Studying Possible Non-Thermal Influences on Honeybees–An Approach within the Framework of Educational Informatics.” (2006).
  54. Rappaport, Theodore S., and Sijia Deng. “73 GHz wideband millimeter-wave foliage and ground reflection measurements and models.” In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW), pp. 1238-1243. IEEE, 2015.
  55. LeVine, Susan. The Active Denial System. A Revolutionary, Non-lethal Weapon for Today’s Battlefield. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY, 2009.
  56. Kumar, Nitin, Udaybir Singh, Anil Kumar, and A. K. Sinha. “Design of 95 GHz, 100 kW gyrotron for active denial system application.” Vacuum 99 (2014): 99-106.
  58. Wu, Ting, Theodore S. Rappaport, and Christopher M. Collins. “Safe for generations to come: Considerations of safety for millimeter waves in wireless communications.” IEEE microwave magazine 16, no. 2 (2015): 65-84.
  59. Wu, Ting, Theodore S. Rappaport, and Christopher M. Collins. “The human body and millimeter-wave wireless communication systems: Interactions and implications.” In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 2423-2429. IEEE, 2015.
  61. Russell, Cindy L. “5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.” Environmental research 165 (2018): 484-495.

Recent Posts