Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function?

Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function?
4.65 (93.02%) 63 votes

The World Health Organization concluded that cell phone radiation may cause brain tumors, but what about effects on cognitive function?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“At present, we don’t know precisely the degree to which the risk of cancer and other adverse health effects are increased by the exposure to [the radiofrequency] fields from cell phones…” I explored the brain tumor data previously. What other potential adverse health effects might there be? For example, what about effects on brain function?

“The dramatic increase in [the] use of cell…phones has generated concern about possible negative effects of [the] radiofrequency signals delivered to the brain. However, whether acute cell phone exposure affects the human brain is unclear.” So, researchers decided to put it to the test using PET scan technology, and did find elevated brain activity “in the region [of the brain] closest to the antenna” after 50 minutes of exposure to a cell phone call. But what does that actually mean? Well, it’s “evidence that the human brain [has at least some sensitivity] to the effects of [cell phone radiation].” The “increased metabolism in [brain] regions closest to the antenna suggests that brain absorption [of cell phone emissions] may enhance the excitability of brain tissue.”

“[T]he [potential] health consequences of this are unknown,” noted the accompanying editorial, though it suggests an effect on brain functioning is possible, potentially affecting “neurotransmitter and neurochemical brain activities.” Maybe that can explain the changes in psychological test outcomes observed after exposure to cell phone radiation. Wait, what?

Earlier studies failed to find an effect of short-term cell exposure on human cognitive performance, but this 2017 review noted that “[s]everal studies [now] indicate an increase in [things like brain tissue excitability,” which may translate out into measurable cognitive effects. This “cortical excitability [excitability of the outer layer of the brain] might…underpin disruption[s in] sleep” tied to cell phone exposure, for example, but may also improve reaction time.

If you expose people to active cell phones while playing a computer game, they can actually respond faster compared to sham exposure, meaning placebo exposure—same scenario, but with the cell phone turned off. So, the industry can be like okay, okay; so, cell phone radiation does affect brain function after all, but the effects are positive! A decrease in reaction time upon exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones can “help…people better respond to different threatening situations,…decreas[ing] errors [perhaps, maybe] reduc[ing destructive accidents.” But, the difference in reaction time was just a few thousandths of a second. Put all the studies together, “the effects seem so small that implications for human performance in everyday life can be practically ruled out.”

There was a study that found that heavy cell phone users did better on a test of the ability to filter out irrelevant information, but this improvement in focused attention may just be because heavy cell phone users have lots of practice carrying on conversations in crowded places. Overall, electromagnetic fields from cell phones “do not seem to induce cognitive or [fine motor skill] effects. Nonetheless, [one has to worry about] the existence of sponsorship and publication biases”—meaning maybe studies funded by cellphone companies were designed in a way to skew the results, or were quietly shelved and never published if they showed anything negative.

And, indeed, if you compare the source of funding and results of studies of the health effects of mobile cell phone use, “studies funded exclusively by industry were…substantially less likely to report…significant [health] effects.” It would look suspicious, though, if all the industry studies just showed no effects. So, some have accused the industry of taking obfuscation to a new level. “Although [yes,] the industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to [show no effects], as [one might] expect…, no two…studies reported the same effect[s], and the few attempts [at replication] failed. Thus, the apparent message of the studies…dovetail[s] well with the [industry’s] position that there are no reproducible biological effects.”

So, they’re not just denying the existence of effects. If the industry-funded studies all just universally found no effects, in contrast to independent research, the industry research program could have been more easily dismissed. Of course, they all couldn’t come out showing health effects—that would have been bad for business. So, by instead coming up with this wide hodge-podge of conflicting results, they can better protect themselves—perhaps all part of “a well-designed legal strategy” to fight off lawsuits. But, we may never know.

We do know that when the World Health Organization came out saying that cell phones may be causing brain tumors, the cellphone industry went into damage control to attack the agency—similar to when the WHO came out against secondhand tobacco smoke. “Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt” is just what industries tend to do.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Rahul Chakraborty via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“At present, we don’t know precisely the degree to which the risk of cancer and other adverse health effects are increased by the exposure to [the radiofrequency] fields from cell phones…” I explored the brain tumor data previously. What other potential adverse health effects might there be? For example, what about effects on brain function?

“The dramatic increase in [the] use of cell…phones has generated concern about possible negative effects of [the] radiofrequency signals delivered to the brain. However, whether acute cell phone exposure affects the human brain is unclear.” So, researchers decided to put it to the test using PET scan technology, and did find elevated brain activity “in the region [of the brain] closest to the antenna” after 50 minutes of exposure to a cell phone call. But what does that actually mean? Well, it’s “evidence that the human brain [has at least some sensitivity] to the effects of [cell phone radiation].” The “increased metabolism in [brain] regions closest to the antenna suggests that brain absorption [of cell phone emissions] may enhance the excitability of brain tissue.”

“[T]he [potential] health consequences of this are unknown,” noted the accompanying editorial, though it suggests an effect on brain functioning is possible, potentially affecting “neurotransmitter and neurochemical brain activities.” Maybe that can explain the changes in psychological test outcomes observed after exposure to cell phone radiation. Wait, what?

Earlier studies failed to find an effect of short-term cell exposure on human cognitive performance, but this 2017 review noted that “[s]everal studies [now] indicate an increase in [things like brain tissue excitability,” which may translate out into measurable cognitive effects. This “cortical excitability [excitability of the outer layer of the brain] might…underpin disruption[s in] sleep” tied to cell phone exposure, for example, but may also improve reaction time.

If you expose people to active cell phones while playing a computer game, they can actually respond faster compared to sham exposure, meaning placebo exposure—same scenario, but with the cell phone turned off. So, the industry can be like okay, okay; so, cell phone radiation does affect brain function after all, but the effects are positive! A decrease in reaction time upon exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones can “help…people better respond to different threatening situations,…decreas[ing] errors [perhaps, maybe] reduc[ing destructive accidents.” But, the difference in reaction time was just a few thousandths of a second. Put all the studies together, “the effects seem so small that implications for human performance in everyday life can be practically ruled out.”

There was a study that found that heavy cell phone users did better on a test of the ability to filter out irrelevant information, but this improvement in focused attention may just be because heavy cell phone users have lots of practice carrying on conversations in crowded places. Overall, electromagnetic fields from cell phones “do not seem to induce cognitive or [fine motor skill] effects. Nonetheless, [one has to worry about] the existence of sponsorship and publication biases”—meaning maybe studies funded by cellphone companies were designed in a way to skew the results, or were quietly shelved and never published if they showed anything negative.

And, indeed, if you compare the source of funding and results of studies of the health effects of mobile cell phone use, “studies funded exclusively by industry were…substantially less likely to report…significant [health] effects.” It would look suspicious, though, if all the industry studies just showed no effects. So, some have accused the industry of taking obfuscation to a new level. “Although [yes,] the industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to [show no effects], as [one might] expect…, no two…studies reported the same effect[s], and the few attempts [at replication] failed. Thus, the apparent message of the studies…dovetail[s] well with the [industry’s] position that there are no reproducible biological effects.”

So, they’re not just denying the existence of effects. If the industry-funded studies all just universally found no effects, in contrast to independent research, the industry research program could have been more easily dismissed. Of course, they all couldn’t come out showing health effects—that would have been bad for business. So, by instead coming up with this wide hodge-podge of conflicting results, they can better protect themselves—perhaps all part of “a well-designed legal strategy” to fight off lawsuits. But, we may never know.

We do know that when the World Health Organization came out saying that cell phones may be causing brain tumors, the cellphone industry went into damage control to attack the agency—similar to when the WHO came out against secondhand tobacco smoke. “Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt” is just what industries tend to do.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Rahul Chakraborty via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

This video is one of an extended series on cell phone impacts. See the others that have already gone up here:

Speaking of conflicts of interests and political maneuvering, did you see my last two videos on cannabis? If not, here are the links:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

44 responses to “Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. WI-FI signals all around us. A bigger concern? WI-FI devices in our laps,
    cars, appliances, stores, and WI-FI routers all around just about every
    store, home,…..we are surrounded by literally billions of these routers,
    as well as close proximity to a multitude of devices. Scary, hun?

      1. “A Year Of WiFi Radiation Equals 20 Minutes On A Cell Phone”

        That depends entirely on the location of the router. I’ve actually measured the output of routers, and many of them do put out the same level of RF radiation as cell phones. If you have a router near where you sit at the computer, as many do, the level of exposure for the person sitting there seems about equal to what they would get using a cell phone on speaker mode. On the other hand if you have a router located as far away from where people spend time, but where everything still works, one can reduce WiFi exposure – from the router (but not from your computer) – a 1000 fold.

        And biological effects from EMFs take place at very low levels, far below the FCC “safety” limit.

        See for example this table: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ from what I see as the most credible EMF information website, http://www.bioinitiative.org/ who put together “The BioInitiative 2012 Report [A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)] has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS.”

        Cell phone and WIFi proponents have make the claim that these device seem safe because the RF (Radio Frequency microwave radiation) broadcast by these devices falls below the 1996 FCC safety limit. However, as the table of peer reviewed scientific research at http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ documents, a great deal of research has appeared over the past 20 years showing that RF exposures well under this out-of-date FCC safety limit can cause harm.

        Most recently, in 2016, and then in 2018, multimillion dollar studies by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/4/feature/feature-2-cell-phone/index.htm) and the Ramazzini Institute (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367?via%3Dihub) clearly demonstrated that RF exposures, at the frequencies emitted by cell phones, WiFi devices, etc., caused both cancer and DNA breaks in animals at exposure levels well below the FCC “safe” limits. Other replicated effects at much lower levels of exposure (http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ ) includes neurological damage in animals even after short exposures, including leakage of the blood brain barrier. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073 )

      2. Blue tooth??? I remember a young woman a few years back–wore a blue tooth constantly and even slept with it. She didn’t, unfortunately, consider that it might have been connected to her recurrent brain tumors.

    1. A cell phone is capable of sending a signal to a tower up to 45 miles away. A wifi router only needs to cover, at most, 300 ft. The signal energy of a cell phone is thus many orders of magnitude greater than that involved in wifi transmission. A cell phone is also held up to the head, with the brain less than an inch away. Because RF radiation dissipates with the square of the distance, proximity to the body makes a huge distance.

      1. Yes, the signal strength from an RF emitting device does decrease rapidly with distance and yes proximity to the body makes a huge difference with respect to the degree of exposure.

        But despite the theory, in actuality the signal energy put out by a cell phone does not seem “many orders of magnitude greater than that involved in wifi transmission.”

        Over the past few years I have repeatedly measured this – I use an Extech 480836 EMF Strength Meter 3.5 GHz RF. WiFi does put out less – a laptop puts out around 10,000 – 20,000 uW/M2 close to the source, a router about 100,000, and a cell phone 150,000 to over 300,000, depending upon how many bars it gets and how much RF it has to put out to connect. Oddly, cordless phones, which only have to transmit a few hundred feet, put out pretty much the same level of RF as do cell phones, and users hold these to the ear as well.

        For ANY of these devices, the more distance you can put between your body – and your brain – while still getting them to work, the better. Biological effects begin at very low levels: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ Some of these effects clearly do not seem benign and begin at exposure levels not just at the level of what a cell phone puts out when held to ones head, but at exposure levels that one can get from WiFi devices even a few few feet away. And as far as deciding the the magnitude of this danger goes, as this video highlights, the current research base, while not useless, has become heavily compromised and weighted towards minimizing any potential dangers.

        .

    1. Actually, your first wording was right – intensity of the energy is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; hence, decreases with the square of the distance.

  2. Hi: Must watch video. She knows her stuff. Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology.
    You can start at 4 mins, before that they ask folks if they read cell ph manual and how cell ph studies used 6ft 2″ 200 lb man. (just like airbag early studies)
    Woman interviewed WAS Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at University of Pittsburgh and lots of experience.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ZoyNi4j_Y (Jane Fonda could play her in suspense thriller about all this!!)

    Lloyds of London drops coverage. Very interesting. Obviously they believe there are problems!
    http://www.joneakes.com/jons-fixit-database/2235-lloyds-of-london-bails-out-of-the-cell-phone-health-debate

    Here is link to radio interview with Columbia U professor who also wrote book, “Overload” and talks about cell damage. He is on about 10 or 15 mins in:
    https://kpfa.org/program/your-own-health-and-fitness/

    Ironically, I just received my first smart ph in the mail yesterday. I’ve had an old flip ph (could be just as bad, not sure) and finally “had” to upgrade.
    I do use earbuds on my current ph and try to keep the new phone away from my body when talking and aim to turn it to airplane mode or off when not using.
    Most important for us is to keep these damn things away from kids as much as possible since their brains still developing.
    Best of health to all,
    Sandy

    1. I found the 2015 Lloyd’s of London story interesting – though not unexpected considering the research that has accumulated – and found more on this website, with details:

      https://www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/

      “The clause excludes any compensation for claims:

      “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electro-magnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

      It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc.

      After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following:

      “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

  3. My husband wears 2 hearing aids (so close proximity to the brain) with Bluetooth for the greater part of the day. Will this ultimately cause a problem?

    1. Nobody knows the answer yet.

      It is less dangerous than cell phones

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/31/ep.cell.phones.cancer/index.html

      How much less dangerous? It is hard for me to figure out, because one person said 100 times less. One person said 200 times less. And this person said 1000 times less:

      https://blog.jabra.com/are-bluetooth-headsets-safe/

      “Unlike cell phones, which have to transmit a signal to an antenna that might be many kilometers away, Bluetooth headsets only need to reach the phone in your pocket. Most Bluetooth headsets have a range of only 10 meters (30 feet). This also means that they emit far less radiation than cell phones themselves. How much less? One thousand times less.”

      Only time will tell, even for cell phones.

      They don’t have conclusive proof for cell phones either. They think long term exposure at high levels will likely cause cancer for cell phones, but the studies have been mixed enough that there are articles calling that conclusion complicated.

      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer-probably-but-it-s-complicated/

      On the positive end, hearing aids help the brain in a few ways.

      http://www.hearingreview.com/2016/02/study-shows-hearing-aids-improve-brain-function/

      https://www.signiausa.com/2017/09/26/reduce-risk-traumatic-brain-injury-hearing-aids/

  4. At the beginning of this video I said to myself, the Pet scans of those poor volunteers are going to probably do more damage than the cell phone exposure.

    And indeed, I think with how long we’ve been using cell phones, it would seem damaging effects should have become evident by now with the ability to assemble statistical data we now have.

    I’ve read with 5G some are addressing concerns with that larger bandwidth being detrimental being safe due to the different frequencies 5G will use.

    I don’t get or make many cell calls so I think I’m o.k. But with transcranial stimulation being done with electrical or magnetic currents, it would not totally surprise me that cell phone stimulation could eventually be proven to be mildly beneficial. But I’m not on board with that being the case just yet.

  5. Please see the rationale why there is no safe level of Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation-Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) for anyone:

    [Excerpt] ‘Dr. Joan Moffat confirmed in Penticton’s Moderated Forum on smart meters that it is a biological fact that a .2 micro volt(millionths of 1 volt) increase changes White Blood Cells, .4 micro volt increase changes mood. Safety Code 6(2009) admits EMFs trigger nerves and muscles, Dr. Peter Goldberg expanded on that by stating the nervous, hormonal and immune systems work intricately together. This qualifies your nervous, hormonal and immune systems are compromised at the same time.’
    http://thermoguy.com/facebook-post-on-integrative-health-forum-page-answering-midge-mathiss-question-on-burns-associated-with-rf-emfs-causal-evidence-not-a-debate/

      1. Tom,

        This is a very interesting research paper. Thanks for sharing the link. Hormesis seems to be a phenomenon that would be very tricky to implement, since each person might have a different threshold where a “helpful” amount could easily turn into a “harmful” amount. But this is also true of a lot of good spices!

        I find the following quote from the paper fascinating:
        “Each of the above examples indicates that we live in a state of partial radiation deficiency. The combined effects suggest we need radiation supplementation for more abundant health (Luckey, 1997b).”

        It appears that both hormesis and nutrient “synergism” are two topics where it would be nice to have a lot more unbiased research.

  6. From the transcript: “And, indeed, if you compare the source of funding and results of studies of the health effects of mobile cell phone use, “studies funded exclusively by industry were…substantially less likely to report…significant [health] effects.” It would look suspicious, though, if all the industry studies just showed no effects. So, some have accused the industry of taking obfuscation to a new level. “Although [yes,] the industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to [show no effects], as [one might] expect…, no two…studies reported the same effect[s], and the few attempts [at replication] failed. Thus, the apparent message of the studies…dovetail[s] well with the [industry’s] position that there are no reproducible biological effects.”

    So, they’re not just denying the existence of effects. If the industry-funded studies all just universally found no effects, in contrast to independent research, the industry research program could have been more easily dismissed. Of course, they all couldn’t come out showing health effects—that would have been bad for business. So, by instead coming up with this wide hodge-podge of conflicting results, they can better protect themselves—perhaps all part of “a well-designed legal strategy” to fight off lawsuits. But, we may never know.”

    This adds a whole new level of sophistication to the corruption of scientific research by corporate interests – but then, considering that the cell phone industry takes in well over 3 trillion dollars a year, they can afford to up their game. For the record though, to those who have paid attention, it should have become pretty clear by this point that one can not expect to get objective information about the hazards of products from the businesses that make them and profit from selling them. And this holds true regardless of what a business sells.

    As best I can tell any business has two objectives. First, to make money, and Second, to minimize or eliminate liability that could lose money. Unless the health of human beings ties into one of these objectives in a significant way, this will play no part in how a business operates. This applies to any business, and any industry, whether the tobacco industry, the sugar industry, the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and yes the cell phone industry, and the RF dependent technology industry in general. And in the event of a particular problem cropping up with respect to health, each deals with it pretty much in the same way:

    Stage 1 – Denial of any effects. Fund research studies specifically designed to show this. Hire lobbyists. Have them lobby to cut off or reduce government funding of research studies that might show effects, and to legislate “safe” levels of exposure as high as possible to neutralize future liability.

    Stage 2 – Data from independent research accumulates. Limited acceptance of some effects, denial of any harmful effects. Fund research studies specifically designed to show this, and to counter studies showing harm or at least to confuse the issue. Hire more lobbyists.

    Stage 3 – Acceptance of small harmful effects, denial of any significant harmful effects at current levels of exposure. Fund research studies specifically designed to show this, and to counter studies showing harm. Hire even more lobbyists and experts to keep “safe” levels of exposure as high as possible.

    Stage 4 – Acceptance of significant harmful effects at current levels of exposure, minimal revision of “safe” exposure levels by government regulatory agencies.

    Stage 5 – Warning labels and educational materials provided to the public.

    Stage – Safe Exposure levels actually enforced by the government. (This almost never happens)

    1. alef, your points are interesting.

      Money makes response to information more complicated.

      Money is a corrupting force on humanity.

      Every topic covered here could have a “money leading to corruption” topic attached to it.

  7. I’m just putting this out here but I think for a European the grain section in the daily dozen app is a bit chaotic to understand.

    A serving of whole grains can be considered a half-cup of hot cereal, such as oatmeal, cooked whole grains, or so-called “pseudograins,” like amaranth, buckwheat, and quinoa, or a half-cup of cooked pasta or corn kernels, a cup of ready-to-eat (cold) cereal, one tortilla or slice of bread, half a bagel or English muffin, or three cups of air-popped popcorn.

    So I would translate into;

    You can eat a daily amount of whole grains that totals 150 grams measured as dry weight. (dry cornflakes aka “cold cereals” would also be 150 grams daily).
    Or you could go for 3 slices bread or 90 grams popcorn.

  8. Hi Netgogate, thank you for your comment and to explain a portion size further. For example this is the way in the UK indicates as a rule for a portion of whole grains.
    40g of cereal (about 6 tablespoons)
    Two slices of bread/toast
    One bread roll or bagel
    One pitta bread
    Five to six new (egg-sized) potatoes
    75g of uncooked rice or pasta (about 5–6 tablespoons when cooked)
    One medium baked potato (with skin)

    1. I don’t know who you are spring03 but the whole grain recommendation in the daily dozen is made by Dr. Greger to inform the people about the optimal amount of whole grains that should be eaten daily to benefit from their unique health promoting properties.

      Potatoes are not whole grains and do not offer the unique nutrients from whole grains. That is why they are found in the vegetable section in the daily dozen.

      My guess is you took a carbohydrate equivalent score from a conventional dietary information source.

  9. Dr. Greger, you are such a badass exposing the way industries work. I hope in the future you do a video about all the sneaky and even bullying (for lack of a better word) things Monsanto has done.

  10. Here we go again with the names:

    EMF = Electro Magnetic FIELD

    EMR = Electro Magnetic RADIATION

    Field sounds friendly whereas Radiation sounds like nuclear bomb. Studies who want to make phones look healthy use Field and vice versa. But they are technically wrong. Yes even the people who make the studies and that supposedly are experts. Nobody would call the light from a light bulb a field, right? Nobody calls photons fields. That is because the word field is used when the source is what is being study. Photons are not fields because can exist without a source (like going through the universe). Radiation is made of photons. Light is made of photons. The correct term is microwave radiation.

    1. Andrew, thanks for posting the link.

      That is so fascinating that they can block the effects of the EMF’s using Calcium Channel blockers!

      1. Another interesting thing to me was that he said that static magnets work through the same mechanism and he had reduction in edema as something static magnets accomplished at a biological level.

        I have been looking to see if any modern researchers found a biological benefit to static magnets.

        I read Dr. Philpott when I was looking at Cancer information and he has a story of his wife getting cancer when they were studying if magnets pointed at the proper pole could get rid of it and they said that she decided to be one of his subjects instead of doing traditional medicines.

        A lot of very intelligent people have said that there is no biological effect of static magnets or they say that they aren’t strong enough to do anything.

        I just get fascinated with research from way back when….

        Hard to know what to believe, but I liked reading his wife’s story.

        And, no, I didn’t buy static magnets, but I almost bought magnetic insoles for my cousin, who has bad feet from Diabetes. WFPB is what I am trying to get him to do, but he isn’t interested. Not sure he would have worn the insoles either, but there is a doctor who tried it on his patients and some of them improved.

      2. Just a note. If microwaves cause problems using the athermal mechanism that Dr. Martin Pall thinks they do via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242331926_Electromagnetic_fields_act_via_activation_of_voltage-gated_calcium_channels_to_produce_beneficial_or_adverse_effects?ev=prf_high ) – magnesium might well minimize such toxic effects (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2559140 ), just as having a magnesium deficiency might maximize them.

        And for the record, unfortunately 75% of Americans have magnesia deficiencies ( http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844214 ).

  11. Wondering if we really know for certain that Steve Jobs’ death wasn’t akin to chicken and asbestos workers?

    I know that the writing about his cancer specifically pointed away from Apple products, but he was vegan and it wasn’t preventing or helping turn it around.

  12. I’m not putting the following out as truth but rather hearsay.

    I got this information from the Hydrogen phone thread on Reduser.net. There is talk of offering the phone in Carbon Fiber finish and someone posted that CF absorbs the signal and thus wouldn’t be a good finish. Someone else suggested the phone could have a small square of some other material that covers the antenna and could thus send and receive calls.

    This might actually work as my camera is a Carbon Fiber case plus other material and wifi works just fine.

    So if it is true that Carbon Fiber absorbs the radiation that is all around us, should we at least build a carbon fiber encasement for our phones that we carry around?

    I’m not suggesting we build CF hats (rather than tinfoil ‘-) to wear around. (Well, maybe if we live or work in a high radiation environment.)

  13. Why are phones so addictive? Even babies/toddlers get hooked. There are wars raging in homes around the globe as parents try to limit phone time to healthier amounts. What gives?
    Thank you for tackling this topic.

  14. Brain cancer may not the worst case… I think in two other directions which should rethinked. Some dentists speak loud about the problems with tooth implants made from titan and other metall. The G5 net, they say, would be a big and bigger problem for this people, because the implants work as a antenna booster. The implantats warm up (to more then 40 °C) and starting to destroy the surounding tissue… may be this will be a bigger problem.
    The other problem I see is the shrinking effekt of the hippocampus during using some Apps of the cellphone, for example the google maps App. Already when the first navigation systems appeared on the public market there has been studys with London taxi drivers. What about the social interctions? More and more teens sitting side by side talking via cellphones with each other in the round…
    I think, brain cancer is not the biggest problem. Sorry.

  15. It is unclear in Dr. Gregor’s video whether distinction has been made for the type of cell phone signal. Early cell phones were analog, a signal that was ionizing or could affect cell chemistry. Cell phones today are digital, using non-ionizing radiation. It seems the studies noted may not be relevant to todays cell phone environment. In addition, today’s users are exposed to different signals 2G, 3G and now 4G. What are the differences on cell biology for each of these???
    Too many variables.

  16. Hi, gregory zulauf. The type of cell phone signal may not matter. Some of these studies are very recent, and others were a bit older, so they undoubtedly involve a number of different types of cell signals. The issue of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation, and 2G versus 3G versus 4G may not be relevant in this case. All cell phones emit RF or radio frequency radiation, which heats body tissues and can affect their function. This may be particularly true for brain cells, which typically are 40-60% fat. Signal strength and proximity to the transmitting antenna are factors, and cell phones are typically used very close to the head. I hope that helps!

  17. Dr. Greger,

    Here are the most relevant studies
    Long-term exposure to 835 MHz RF-EMF induces hyperactivity, autophagy and demyelination in the cortical neurons of mice

    “mice were exposed to 835 MHz RF-EMF at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4.0 W/kg for 5 hours/day during 12 weeks
    RF-EMF exposure led to myelin sheath damage and mice displayed hyperactivity-like behaviour”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5247706/

    5 hours is nothing, we’re exposed to RF longer at work/schools, including WIFI. I purchased a meter HF35C RF Meter, made by Gigahertz Solutions a German company. Everything over 0.5 uW per sq meter is excessive.

    Study Effects of 900-MHz radiation on the hippocampus and cerebellum ofadult rats
    “The results showed that EMF caused a significant decrease in total pyramidal and granular cell numbers in the hippocampus, and DG and in Purkinje cell numbers in the cerebellum in the EMF group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05)." Neuron numbers significantly decreased. EMF, cell/WIFI seems to make subjects dumber.
    https://emmind.net/openpapers_repos/Applied_Fields-Hazads/Microwave_Effects/Phone_2G-3G/2017_Effects_of_900-MHz_radiation_on_the_hippocampus_and_cerebellum_of_adult_rats_and_attenuation_of_such_effects_by.pdf

    Sweden has one of the lowest allowable EMF exposure limits. I have no associations with this Canadian company that is the official dealer of meters, but there is one in the US lessemf.com which I think is hyping up some of its products.
    http://slt.co/Downloads/Education/International-emf-Exposure.pdf

    http://slt.co/Education/EMR-ExposureGuidelines.aspx

    I personally have significant headaches at my work. Didn't know why, until I used the meter, the reading is close to 1.00 uW per sq meter. Take the same meter to your school, library, shopping malls, grocery stores, WIFI has been provided for convenience, but when people complain about poor WIFI reception, these places boost the signal even more. How stupid. Also, I measured the levels at a nearby park, the readings were over 1.00 uW at the children's' play area.

    Now when you have a meter you can measure your exposure to EMF from cell/smart phone, you DO NOT have to keep it to your head/body, the readings are through the roof at the arms length. The newer 5G technology is even worse (but wait the reception is perfect), the readings are overly excessive at 3-5 ft away from a phone. The earpiece will not help you.

  18. RADIOFREQUENCY / MICROWAVE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES

    Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome)
    http://slt.co/Downloads/Education/Austrian-EMF-Guidelines-2012.pdf

    Research Summaries
    http://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

    The Building Biology Survey according to the STANDARD OF BUILDING BIOLOGY TESTING METHODS SBM-2008
    http://slt.co/Downloads/Education/SBB-TestingMethods-2008.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This