Mothers feed their babies with smartphones pressed against their babies unaware that they are exposing their newborn to wireless radiation.

Children and the developing fetus are uniquely vulnerable to EMFs just as they are to other environmental toxins. Children’s ongoing physical development and physiology put them at greater risk. 

• Children absorb proportionately higher doses in the eyes and critical brain regions than adults due to their smaller heads, thinner skulls and higher water content (Ferreira and de Salles 2015,  Fernandez et al. 2018, Ghandi 2012). 
• Children have more active stem cells and stem cells have been found to be more sensitive to exposure (Markova et al,  2010, Williams et al. 2006).
• Developing brains are more susceptible to neurotoxic exposures (Lanphear 2015, Redmayne and Johansson 2014 and 2015).

The Environmental Working Group published a landmark study analyzing the findings of cancer and heart damage in the National Toxicology Program study and concluded that FCC limits should be strengthened by 200 to 400 times to protect children according to current risk assessment guidelines (Uche 2021). 

Mounting evidence indicates the nervous system is sensitive to EMFs (Bertagna 2021).  Cell phone radiation has been found to alter brain activity (Volkow et al 2011, Bin et al 2014), impact neurotransmitters and alter neuron development (Kaplan et al, 2015, Li et al 2021, Chen et al 2021). A  replication study on teenagers found memory damage to the area of the brain most exposed to cell phone radiation when the phone is held close to head (Foerster et al 2018).

Experimental animal research has found a variety of RF-EMF impacts especially in the brain regions critical to memory and learning (Sonmez, et al. 2010, Dasdag et al 2015, Shahin et al, 2018, Obajuluwa et al 2017, Tan et al., 2021, Hasan et al., 2021).  

A Synergistic Effect

Research has found that non ionizing EMF exposure can act synergistically with other environmental pollutants creating healing effects as well as harmful effects (Kostoff and Lau 2017). Non ionizing EMFs are used to treat cancer because of their effects when used in combination with traditional chemotherapy (Jiminez et al 2019). Prenatal (Choi et al., 2017) and postnatal (Byun et al., 2017) mobile phone exposure has been found to result in greater neurobehavioral effects in children when paired with elevated lead levels. 

Two studies by the Ramazzini Institute found animals had significant increased tumors when their non ionizing ELF-EMF exposure was combined with a known carcinogen  “Carcinogenic Synergism of S-50 Hz MF Plus Formaldehyde in Rats” and “Life-span exposure to sinusoidal-50 Hz magnetic field and acute low-dose γ radiation induce carcinogenic effects in Sprague-Dawley rats.” 

Studies have found EMF increase the permeability of the blood brain barrier – allowing more toxic agents to reach the brain (Nittby et al 2009, Sirav and Seyhan 2016, Tang et al 2015). Thus, EMFs can add to our total body burden from the common various carcinogens and environmental exposures we experience in our everyday life. 

Pregnancy 

As wireless is now ubiquitous, children will receive a greater cumulative exposure than adults, with exposure starting before they are born (Miller et al, 2019). As with other environmental toxins, the developing fetus is particularly sensitive to exposure during critical developmental periods. Although more research needs to be done to fully understand the risk at during windows of vulnerability, research on pregnant women has linked prenatal cell phone radiation exposure to oxidative stress and DNA damage in cord blood (Bektas et al 2021); increased risk for miscarriage (Mahmoudabadi et al., 2015), lower birth weight (Lu et al 2017), fetal growth impacts (Boileau et al., 2020), and preterm birth (Tsarna et al 2019); as well as emotional/behavioral problems (Divan et al 2012, Sudan et al 2016) and hyperactivity (Birks et al., 2017) in their children. Animal studies have linked prenatal wireless exposure to DNA damage (Smith-Roe et al., 2020), brain damage (Tan et al., 2017), memory problems (Shahin et al., 2018), hyperactivity (Aldad et al., 2012), cellular impacts (Fragopoulou et al., 2018), and an inflammatory response (Singh et al., 2020). 

Reducing Exposure in Homes, Schools and Buildings 

Families can reduce exposure at home by choosing corded technology instead of wireless whenever possible. Children spend hours every day in and around schools yet federal laws do not addressing the increasing EMF environmental exposures in daycares and schools from the proliferation of wireless networks.  In 2016, the Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC) issued a Report on Wireless and Children’s Health recommending schools reduce wireless in classrooms as much as possible by preferring wired internet connections.

In 2020, the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G issued 15 recommendations which included several recommendations to reduce public exposure including large setbacks to distance cell antennas from homes and schools, replacing Wi-Fi with wired in schools and a public health campaign to educate families.  

American Academy of Pediatrics on Reducing Cell Phone Radiation

• Prefer texting to voice calls
• Use cell phones in speaker mode or hands-free. 
• Hold cell phone at distance from head. 
• Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.
• Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. 
• Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. 
• If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
• Minimize use in areas of low signal (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off.  
• Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.
• Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

Shortened from AAP Website: Healthy Children.org (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016)

Why does the FDA not take this massive and mounting scientific evidence seriously?  More importantly, why are standards for testing and measuring exposures based solely on avoiding changes in temperature and unchanged since 1996 ? The answer is money.  Industry has deep pockets, as the Harvard Law School, Safra Center for Ethics Report “Captured Agency” by Norm Alter details. Insurance Companies have mostly excluded coverage of adverse health or environmental effects from  RFR and the white papers of insurance authorities deem the potential liability as “high”.  5G was rated by Swiss Re Insurance as a “High” off the leash risk. 

Research showing DNA damage and increased cancer are known but have long been downplayed by industry.  Davis’s book ˆDisconnect–the truth about cellphone radiation,’ documents the industry strategy of employing “war-games” when inconvenient science emerges.