Numerous analyses of studies have found the majority of studies on wireless frequencies evaluated show biological effects. 

Scientists of the Bioinitiative have repeatedly documented how the majority of studies show effects. 

A November 18, 2021 letter from Cindy Sage, M.A., David O. Carpenter, MD., Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D., Prof. Henry Lai, Ph.D. documents the majority of recent studies show effects concluding that the “research published over the last two years has added significant additional weight to the body of evidence which indicates that FCC public safety exposure limits are grossly inadequate to protect public health given the proliferation of RFR-emitting devices now in common usage.”

• “When the cumulative body of evidence is assessed over the last decades of research, the overall picture for studies on radiofrequency radiation effects shows clear and consistent patterns of effects on living tissues. Chronic RFR exposures at environmental levels common today can reasonably be presumed to produce health harm at and below current FCC safety limits for humans and should be substantially lowered.”
• Neurological effects: Effect= 74% (271 studies); No Effect= 26% (97 studies) (literature up to November 12, 2021)
• Oxidative effects: Effect= 92% (258 studies); No Effect= 8% (23) studies) (literature up to November 12, 2021)”
• Genetic effects: Effect= 67% (259 studies); No Effect= 33% (129 studies) (literature up to November 12, 2021)

Dr. Henry Lai’s analysis

In 2020, Henry Lai PhD updated his reports on published studies finding effects from RFR and non ionizing radiation. He posted this analysis as well as all the abstracts for the studies. 

• Neurological RFR studies report effects in 73 % of studies on RF radiation –– or 244 of 336 studies. (Bioinitiative 2020). 
• Genetic effect studies report effects in 65 % of studies on RF radiation –– or 224 of 346 studies (Bioinitiative 2020). 
• Free Radical (Oxidative Damage) effect studies report effects in 91 % of studies on RF radiation — or 240 of 261 studies (Bioinitiative 2020). 
• RFR Comet Assay effect studies report effects in 65 % of studies on RF radiation — or 78 of 125 studies (Bioinitiative 2020). 

Lancet Article Cites 1,546 Studies

The respected journal Lancet Planetary Health published Bandara and Carpenter 2018  that states: “A recent evaluation of 2,266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.  This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels.”

Scientists of the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association published the paper “The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies” which presented an overview of the existing evidence base on millimeter waves and found the total number of studies documenting effects was higher than those not finding effects.

Figure 1, from biochemical to behavior, found a “preliminary weight of evidence is visible. Overall, this picture suggests that mmWaves may affect many biological and health categories that warrant further investigation.” 

Image: McCredden JE, Weller S, Leach V. The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies. Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 26 Figure 1. “The main biological and health categories present in the mmWave experimental (i.e., in vitro and in vivo) literature base, and within each category, the number of papers producing effects vs. the number of papers resulting in no significant effects. The total number of studies is greater than the total number of papers because any given paper may have conducted more than one study and investigated more than one biological effect. ” “Figure 1 shows that the mmWave experimental studies cover a wide range of bioeffects. Furthermore, for most of the categories in Figure 1, from biochemical to behavior, a preliminary weight of evidence is visible. Overall, this picture suggests that mmWaves may affect many biological and health categories that warrant further investigation. Several of these categories have potential implications for public health, e.g., cellular oxidative stress, changes in immune function, genotoxicity, brain/neuronal changes, and cell membrane permeability. In particular, effects have been found in all studies that have investigated oxidative stress [cellular stress due to the over-production of reactive oxygen species and the reduction of oxidative defenses (11)]. Oxidative stress underlies many auto-immune and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease and depression, some of which are becoming an increasing social and economic threat worldwide (12).”

Figure 2. looked at the relative proportion of “Effects” and “No Effects” study outcomes according to the funding source finding industry funded mmWave studies have produced a lower overall proportion of “Effect” outcomes, compared to government-funded and institution-based studies. From McCredden JE, Weller S, Leach V. The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies. Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 26

Numerous additional published reviews on various endpoints confirm and corroborate such evaluations. 

• For example, the Switzerland Institute of the Environment expert published review found increased oxidative stress in the majority of animal studies and cell studies with exposures within regulatory limits (Schuermann et al., 2021). 
• An earlier review (Yakymenko et al 2016) on oxidative stress  concluded 93 of 100 studies found oxidative effects. 
• “A review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF” reviewed 113 studies finding RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms, and plants in 70% of the studies (Cucurachi 2013). 
• In 2010, the government of India’s Ministry of the Environment and Forest issued a report on the potential impacts of communication towers on wildlife, citing hundreds of research studies that found adverse effects. Recommendations from the Ministry include, “Introduce a law for protection of urban flora and fauna from emerging threats like ERM/EMF as conservation issues in urban areas are different from forested or wildlife habitats.”   The findings were published in The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of expert scientists reviewed the literature of the effects of RF-EMF radiations on wildlife, humans and the biosphere.The report was summarized in“Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) from Cell Phone Towers and Wireless Devices on Biosystem and Ecosystem – A Review,” published in Biology and Medicine (S. Sivani et al., 2013). They found that:
  • Total Effects-  593 of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans showed impacts. 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies 
  • Human Effects– 62% showed effects, 13% no effect and 25% inconclusive Plant Effects– 87% showed effects and 13% were inconclusive 
  • Wildlife Effects- 62% showed effects, 4% no effect and 36% inconclusive 
  • Bee Effects—85% showed effects and 15% no effect 
  • Bird Effects- 77% showed effects, 10% no effect and 13% inconclusive 

• Recent systematic reviews find harm to sperm (Sungjoon et al, 2021, Yu et al., 2021, Kim et al., 2021) corroborating earlier reviews that concluded harm to sperm  (Adams et al 2014, Houston et al 2016, Liu et al 2014).