phone radiation research

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

Why has there been concern that cell phones may cause cancer.

There are two main reasons why people are concerned that cell (or mobile) phones might have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems: Cell phones emit radiation (in the form of radiofrequency radiation , or radio waves ), and cell phone use is widespread. Even a small increase in cancer risk from cell phones would be of concern given how many people use them.

Brain and central nervous system cancers have been of particular concern because hand-held phones are used close to the head and because ionizing radiation—a higher energy form of radiation than what cell phones emit—has been found to cause some brain cancers. Many different kinds of studies have been carried out to try to investigate whether cell phone use is dangerous to human health.

However, the evidence to date suggests that cell phone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.

Is the radiation from cell phones harmful?

Cell phones emit radiation in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum . Second-, third-, and fourth-generation cell phones (2G, 3G, 4G) emit radiofrequency in the frequency range of 0.7–2.7 GHz. Fifth-generation (5G) cell phones are anticipated to use the frequency spectrum up to 80 GHz. 

These frequencies all fall in the nonionizing range of the spectrum, which is low frequency and low energy. The energy is too low to damage DNA. By contrast, ionizing radiation , which includes x-rays , radon , and cosmic rays, is high frequency and high energy. Energy from ionizing radiation can damage DNA. DNA damage can cause changes to genes that may increase the risk of cancer.

The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists sources of radiofrequency radiation . More information about ionizing radiation can be found on the Radiation page.

The human body does absorb energy from devices that emit radiofrequency radiation. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation absorption in humans that the general public might encounter is heating to the area of the body where a cell phone is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, that heating is not sufficient to measurably increase core body temperature. There are no other clearly established dangerous health effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

Has the incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers changed during the time cell phone use increased?

No. Investigators have studied whether the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers (that is, the number of new cases of these cancers diagnosed each year) has changed during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These studies found:

• stable incidence rates for adult gliomas in the United States ( 1 ), Nordic countries ( 2 ) and Australia ( 3 ) during the past several decades
• stable incidence rates for pediatric brain tumors in the United States during 1993–2013 ( 4 )
• stable incidence rates for acoustic neuroma ( 5 ), which are nonmalignant tumors , and meningioma ( 6 ), which are usually nonmalignant, among US adults since 2009 

In addition, studies using cancer incidence data have tested different scenarios (simulations) determining whether the incidence trends are in line with various levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain tumors between 1979 and 2008 ( 7 , 8 ). These simulations showed that many risk changes reported in case–control studies  were not consistent with incidence data, implying that biases  and errors in the study may have distorted the findings.

Because these studies examine cancer incidence trends over time in populations rather than comparing risk in people who do and don’t use cell phones, their ability to observe potential small differences in risk among heavy users or susceptible populations is limited. Observational/epidemiologic studies—including case–control and cohort studies  (described below)—are designed to measure individual exposure to cell phone radiation and ascertain specific health outcomes.

How is radiofrequency radiation exposure measured in studies of groups of people?

Epidemiologic  studies use information from several sources, including questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers, to estimate radiofrequency radiation exposure in groups of people. Direct measurements are not yet possible outside of a laboratory setting. Estimates from studies reported to date take into account the following:

• How regularly study participants use cell phones (the number of calls per week or month)
• The age and the year when study participants first used a cell phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the duration of use and time since the start of use)
• The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month (frequency)
• The average length of a typical cell phone call
• The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use

What has research shown about the link between cell phone use and cancer risk?

Researchers have carried out several types of population studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of tumors, both malignant (cancerous) and nonmalignant (not cancer). Epidemiologic  studies (also called observational studies ) are research studies in which investigators observe groups of individuals (populations) and collect information about them but do not try to change anything about the groups. 

Two main types of epidemiologic studies— cohort studies  and case–control studies —have been used to examine associations between cell phone use and cancer risk. In a case–control study, cell phone use is compared between people who have tumors and people who don’t. In a cohort study, a large group of people who do not have cancer at the beginning of the study is followed over time and tumor development in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cohort studies are limited by the fact that they may only be able to look at cell phone subscribers, who are not necessarily the cell phone users.

The tumors that have been investigated in epidemiologic studies include malignant brain tumors, such as gliomas , as well as nonmalignant tumors, such as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas (usually nonmalignant tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord ), parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands ), skin cancer, and thyroid gland tumors.

Four large epidemiologic studies have examined the possible association between cell phone use and cancer: Interphone, a case–control study, and three cohort studies, the Danish Study, the Million Women Study, and the Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS). The findings of these studies are mixed, but overall, they do not show an association between cell phone use and cancer ( 9 – 23 ).

Interphone Case–Control Study

How the study was done: This is the largest case–control study of cell phone use and the risk of head and neck tumors. It was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries. The data came from questionnaires that were completed by study participants in Europe, Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have shown no increases overall in brain or other central nervous system cancers (glioma and meningioma) related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One analysis showed a statistically significant , although small, increase in the risk of glioma among study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, for a variety of reasons the researchers considered this finding inconclusive ( 11 – 13 ).

An analysis of data from all 13 countries reported a statistically significant association between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-reported location of the phone ( 14 ). However, the authors of this study noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect based on their findings.

An analysis of data from five Northern European countries showed an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in those who had used a cell phone for 10 or more years ( 15 ). 

In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators investigated whether tumors were more likely to form in areas of the brain with the highest exposure. One analysis showed no relationship between tumor location and level of radiation ( 16 ). However, another found evidence that glioma and, to a lesser extent, meningioma were more likely to develop where exposure was highest ( 17 ).

Danish Cohort Study

How the study was done: This cohort study linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry.

What the study showed: No association was observed between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years ( 18 – 20 ).

Million Women Cohort Study

How the study was done: This prospective cohort study conducted in the United Kingdom used data obtained from questionnaires that were completed by study participants.

What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma ( 21 ), it was not observed with additional years of follow-up of the cohort ( 22) .

Cohort Study of Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS)

How the study was done: This large prospective cohort study conducted in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom used data on health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use obtained from a questionnaire completed by participants when they joined the study. That information was supplemented with cancer occurrence data obtained from linkage to national cancer registries and cell phone records obtained from mobile network operators. 

What the study showed: Among 264,574 participants with a median follow-up of just over 7 years, the cumulative amount of mobile phone call-time was not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma ( 23 ). No associations with cancer risk were seen in the heaviest mobile phone users or among among those with the longest history of mobile phone use (15 or more years).

Other Epidemiologic Studies

In addition to these four large studies, other, smaller epidemiologic studies have looked for associations between cell phone use and individual cancers in both adults and children. These include:

• Two NCI-sponsored case–control studies, each conducted in multiple US academic medical centers or hospitals between 1994 and 1998 that used data from questionnaires ( 24) or computer-assisted personal interviews ( 25 ). Neither study showed a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma in adults.
• The CERENAT study, another case–control study conducted in multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires ( 26 ). This study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when comparing adults who were regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and meningiomas.
• A pooled analysis of two case–control studies conducted in Sweden that reported statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before age 20 ( 27 ).
• Another case–control study in Sweden, part of the Interphone pooled studies, did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among long-term cell phone users between the ages of 20 and 69 ( 28 ).
• The CEFALO study, an international case–control study of children diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19, found no relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer ( 29 ).
• The MOBI-Kids study, a large international case–control study of young people ages 10 to 24 years diagnosed with brain tumors, found no evidence of an association between wireless phone use and the risk of brain tumors ( 30 ). 
• A population-based case–control study conducted in Connecticut found no association between cell phone use and the risk of thyroid cancer ( 31 ).

What are the findings from studies of the human body?

Researchers have carried out several kinds of studies to investigate possible effects of cell phone use on the human body. In 2011, two small studies were published that examined brain glucose metabolism in people after they had used cell phones. The results were inconsistent. One study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain ( 32 ); the other study ( 33 ) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used.

The authors of these studies noted that the results were preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the physiological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people ( 11 ). Some factors that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and investigators not being blinded to exposure status.

Another study investigated blood flow in the brain of people exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and found no evidence of an effect on blood flow in the brain ( 34 ).

What are the findings from experiments in laboratory animals?

Early studies involving laboratory animals showed no evidence that radiofrequency radiation increased cancer risk or enhanced the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens ( 35 – 38 ).

Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nominated radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures for study in animal models by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP is an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and testing across the US Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of NIH.

The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in rats and mice ( 39 , 40 ). This large project was conducted in highly specialized labs. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of 3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A research overview of the rodent studies , with links to the peer-review summary, is available on the NTP website. The primary outcomes observed were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells  in the heart and non-cancerous changes ( hyperplasia ) in the same tissues for male rats, but not female rats, nor in mice overall.

These experimental findings raise new questions because cancers in the heart are extremely rare in humans. Schwann cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP plans to continue to study radiofrequency exposure in animal models to provide insights into the biological changes that might explain the outcomes observed in their study.

Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and 0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at the Italian Ramazzini Institute ( 41 ). Among the rats with the highest exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats and nonmalignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.

ICNIRP (an independent nonprofit organization that provides scientific advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of nonionizing radiation) critically evaluated both studies. It concluded that both followed good laboratory practice, including using more animals than earlier research and exposing the animals to radiofrequency radiation throughout their lifetimes. However, it also identified what it considered major weaknesses in how the studies were conducted and statistically analyzed and concluded that these limitations prevent drawing conclusions about the ability of radiofrequency exposures to cause cancer ( 42 ).

Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone use and cancer risk inconsistent?

A few studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks in humans, but most studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies include the following:

• Recall bias , which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. Study participants who have brain tumors, for example, may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors.
• Inaccurate reporting , which can happen when people say that something has happened more often or less often than it actually did. For example, people may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
• Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions.
• Participation bias , which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study.
• Changing technology. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones, and cellular technology continues to change ( 43 ). 
• Exposure assessment limitations. Different studies measure exposure differently, which makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies ( 44 ). Investigations of sources and levels of exposure, particularly in children, are ongoing ( 45 ).
• Insufficient follow-up of highly exposed populations. It may take a very long time to develop symptoms after exposure to radiofrequency radiation, and current studies may not yet have followed participants long enough.
• Inadequate statistical power and methods to detect very small risks or risks that affect small subgroups of people specifically 
• Chance as an explanation of apparent effects may not have been considered.

What are other possible health effects from cell phone use?

The most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is distracted driving and vehicle accidents ( 46 , 47 ). Several other potential health effects have been reported with cell phone use. Neurologic effects are of particular concern in young persons. However, studies of memory, learning, and cognitive function have generally produced inconsistent results ( 48 – 51 ).

What have expert organizations said about the cancer risk from cell phone use?

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , a component of the World Health Organization, appointed an expert working group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The working group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic studies ( 11 ).

The working group indicated that, although the human studies were susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The working group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or confounding variables rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the working group stated that the investigation of brain cancer risk associated with cell phone use poses complex research challenges.

The American Cancer Society’s cell phones page states “It is not clear at this time that RF (radiofrequency) waves from cell phones cause dangerous health effects in people, but studies now being done should give a clearer picture of the possible health effects in the future.” 

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health problems. FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports released in February 2018, saying “based on this current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.” FDA and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use causes cancer.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that currently no scientific evidence establishes a definite link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.

In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region ( 9 ). The committee also stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer ( 9 ).

Has radiofrequency radiation from cell phone use been associated with cancer risk in children?

There are theoretical considerations as to why the potential health effects of cell phone use should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and consequently have a greater proportional exposure to radiation emitted by cell phones. And, children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults.

Thus far, the data from studies of children with cancer do not suggest that children are at increased risk of developing cancer from cell phone use. The first published analysis came from a large case–control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Europe. The study included 352 children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008 at the ages of 7 to 19 years. They were matched by age, sex, and geographical region with 646 young people randomly selected from population registries. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk by amount of use or by the location of the tumor ( 29 ).

The largest case–control study among children, a 14-country study known as MOBI-Kids, included 899 young people ages 10 to 24 years who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2010 and 2015. They were matched by sex, age, and region with 1,910 young people who were undergoing surgery for appendicitis. Researchers found no evidence of an association between wireless phone use and brain tumors in young people ( 30 ).

Which US federal agencies have a role in evaluating the effects of or regulating cell phones?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), including the National Cancer Institute (NCI), conducts research on cell phone use and the risks of cancer and other diseases.

FDA and FCC share regulatory responsibilities for cell phones. FDA is responsible for testing and evaluating electronic product radiation and providing information for the public about the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones. FCC sets limits on the emissions of radiofrequency energy by cell phones and similar wireless products.

Where can I find more information about radiofrequency radiation from my cell phone?

The dose of the energy that people absorb from any source of radiation is estimated using a measure called the specific absorption rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per kilogram of body weight ( 52 ). The SAR decreases very quickly as the distance to the exposure source increases. For cell phone users who hold their phones next to their head during voice calls, the highest exposure is to the brain, acoustic nerve, salivary gland, and thyroid.

The FCC provides information about the SAR of cell phones produced and marketed within the previous 1 to 2 years. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form . SARs for older phones can be found by checking the phone settings or by contacting the manufacturer.

What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation?

FDA has suggested some steps that concerned cell phone users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation :

• Reduce the amount of time spent using your cell phone.
• Use speaker mode, head phones, or ear buds to place more distance between your head and the cell phone.
• Avoid making calls when the signal is weak as this causes cell phones to boost RF transmission power.
• Consider texting rather than talking, but don’t text while you are driving. 

Use of wired or wireless headsets reduces the amount of radiofrequency radiation exposure to the head because the phone is not placed against the head ( 53 ). Exposures decline dramatically when cell phones are used hands-free. For example, wireless (Bluetooth) devices (such as headphones and earbuds) use short-range signals that typically transmit radiofrequency waves at power levels 10–400 times lower than cell phones ( 54 ).

• Share full article

Do I Need to Worry About Smartphone Radiation?

Some studies have linked cellphone use with cancer, so we asked some experts to explain the risk.

Credit... Eric Helgas for The New York Times

Supported by

By Caroline Hopkins

• Nov. 14, 2023

Q: I’m constantly on my phone, and it’s usually near my body when I’m not. Should I worry about radiation exposure?

Spending all day glued to your smartphone probably isn’t doing you any favors. Excess phone use has been linked with a range of concerns, including sleep issues , elevated cortisol levels , joint pain and even relationship woes .

But if it’s radiation you’re worried about, experts say you don’t have to ditch your phone.

“There’s no risk of anything hazardous or dangerous with radiation from cellphones,” said Gayle Woloschak, an associate dean and professor of radiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

As with all cellphones (along with Wi-Fi networks, radio stations, remote controls and GPS), smartphones do emit radiation, said Emily Caffrey, an assistant professor of health physics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. They use invisible energy waves to transmit voices, texts, photos and emails to nearby cell towers, which can shuttle them to virtually anywhere in the world.

But nearly three decades of scientific research has not linked such exposures to medical issues like cancer, health authorities including the Food and Drug Administration say. Here’s what we know.

Not all radiation is harmful

“Radiation” describes many types of energy, some of which do carry risks, said Dr. Howard Fine, director of the Brain Tumor Center at NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

Atomic bombs, or, to a far lesser degree, X-ray machines, emit energy called ionizing radiation that — in high enough or frequent enough doses — can damage DNA and cause cancer, Dr. Fine said.

This is why you usually wear a protective lead blanket during X-rays.

But smartphone energy falls into a category called non-ionizing radiation, Dr. Caffrey said, which isn’t powerful enough to cause this damage.

“A lot of people think ‘radiation is radiation,’ but it’s not all the same.” Dr. Woloschak said. “There’s no DNA damage seen from cellphone use.”

The more dangerous ionizing radiation can separate electrons from atoms, which make up our DNA. Over time, DNA damage can cause cancer.

Why is there still concern?

Most experts and health authorities like the F.D.A., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization agree that there’s no evidence that smartphone radiation causes health problems. Still, several studies over the years have made headlines for suggesting their links to brain tumors. Many of these studies have since been debunked, Dr. Fine said, including those focused on fifth-generation mobile networks, or 5G .

In one study published in 2010 , for instance, researchers found a small association between one type of brain tumor and the highest levels of cellphone use. But the study’s own researchers noted that “biases and error” prevented them from proving cause and effect. Of the study’s various flaws, according to its authors, one was that it relied on people with brain cancer to correctly remember exactly how much they used their phones over many years.

All of the experts interviewed for this story said that the few studies that have suggested that smartphones pose radiation risks didn’t actually prove that cellphones caused those health issues.

Most people in the United States own cellphones, according to the Pew Research Center — and it would be nearly impossible to single out cellphones as a reason someone developed cancer, Dr. Fine said. Unrelated risk factors, such as exposure to air pollution, smoking, unhealthy habits or even just chance, could have been the culprits.

Yet studies with flaws like these have muddied perceptions about phone safety, the National Cancer Institute says.

Staying on the safe side

Cellphones today are nothing like the brick phones of the early 2000s. The phones we’ll use next decade will be different, too. This makes it challenging to study the long-term risks from any one phone. But Dr. Fine said radiation has actually decreased with newer technology, and Dr. Woloschak said new networks aren’t riskier than older ones, either.

“5G radiation is no higher than the 4G was,” she said. “It just allows for greater data transfer.”

Still, the Federal Communications Commission and its international counterparts set radiation limits for new phones . This explains why, in September, French authorities told Apple that it must lower the radiation levels emitted by the iPhone 12 to comply with its maximum limits. Apple rolled out a software update to fix the issue.

Dr. Caffrey said these limits are based on radiation levels that could theoretically raise our body temperatures a fraction of a degree. According to Dr. Woloschak, radiation would need to heat our bodies several full degrees to pose health risks like burns or a fever. “A cellphone’s never going to do that,” she said.

Caroline Hopkins is a health and science journalist based in Brooklyn.

How to Make Your Smartphone Better

These days, smartphones include tools to help you more easily connect with the people you want to contact — and avoid those you don’t. Here are some tips .

Trying to spend less time on your phone? The “Do Not Disturb” mode can help you set boundaries and signal that it may take you a while to respond .

To comply with recent European regulations, Apple will make a switch to USB-C charging for its iPhones. Here is how to navigate the change .

Photo apps have been using A.I. for years to give you control over the look of your images. Here’s how to take advantage of that .

The loss of your smartphone can be disruptive and stressful. Taking a few simple steps ahead of time can make things easier if disaster strikes .

Many default settings make us share superfluous amounts of data with tech companies. Here’s how to shut those off .

Advertisement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.2018; 2018

Radiation Effects of Mobile Phones and Tablets on the Skin: A Systematic Review

A. keykhosravi.

1 Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Khorasan Razavi, Iran

M. Neamatshahi

2 Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Research Center Social Determinants health, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Khorasan Razavi, Iran

R. Mahmoodi

3 Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Khorasan Razavi, Iran

E. Navipour

Skin health has become a worldwide concern. Most of the studies investigated the effect of mobile phone radiation on DNA and animals, but a few studies were carried out about skin diseases in mobile phone and tablet users. Few systematic studies have examined the relationship between mobile phone exposure and skin diseases.

We evaluated the association between mobile phones and tablets and skin diseases. We checked databases including PubMed, Scopus, Springer, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from 1995 to 2013. The eligibility criteria were descriptive, and observational studies were in English and Persian language, and the subjects were of all ages and reported skin disease.

Most of the studies focused on signs and less on skin cancer. In total, 6 studies were included with 392119 participants with age over 25 years. In a nationwide cohort study in Denmark for BCC, the IRR (incidence rate ratios) estimates remained near unity among men and women. In the other studies, they reported an increase in temperature, hypersensitivity of warmth, facial dermatitis, angiosarcoma of the scalp, and burning sensations in the facial skin after mobile phone use on the exposed side and more within the auricle and behind/around the ear.

Conclusions

Overall evaluations showed that the level of evidence associated with the effects of radiation from the mobile phone and tablet on the skin is poor. This review shows a necessity for more studies in this area.

1. Introduction

Mobile phones and tablets have become the most effective communication tools especially in metropolitan cities [ 1 ]. Exposure of the general population to radiofrequency (RF) fields from mobile phones and other communication tools has become universal and continuous in recent years [ 2 ]. The number of mobile phone users has gone up to 5 billion in a world of 7.4 billion [ 1 ]. Development of using mobile phones has increased concerns about the safety of health, in recent years. The studies reflected public concerns about childhood and adult cancers. The possibility that some individuals experience hypersensitivity or other symptoms in response to mobile exposure was a high priority for research [ 3 ].

The emitted radiation in mobile phone and tablet is electromagnetic ray in the microwave range (850–1800) [ 1 ]. Collected evidence indicates that the frequency produced by mobile phones or base stations may affect the health of the people [ 4 , 5 ].

The skin receives much radiation in contact with mobile phone and tablet although many studies have been carried out on the effect of electromagnetic radiation on biologic system and intracranial tumors [ 1 , 6 ], Diseases of the skin, especially skin cancers and contact dermatitis, are very important because of their high prevalence, chronic nature of the disease, and high impact on the quality of life [ 7 ] (skin diseases cause pain and discomfort in 21% to 87% of the affected people) [ 8 ]. Skin diseases allocated high burden of disease (rank eighteenth) in all age groups [ 9 ].

Among the factors that are related to skin diseases, less attention has been paid to environmental factors. Most studies have been done on these factors, in animals. The results indicate that exposure to radiation emitted by mobile phones caused skin changes in rats, as, increased thickness of surface layer, atrophy of epidermis, deep layer proliferation, vascular proliferation, impairment in collagen tissue and protein expression in human skin in proteomics approach.

The lack of studies on the association between mobile phone use and risk of skin diseases prompted us to examine these associations in this systematic review.

2.1. Search Strategy

We reviewed PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Springer 1995 to 2017. A range of mesh, key words, and their combinations were used, including skin disease, cell phone, smart phone, mobile phone, electrochemical magnetic field, skin cancer, skin carcinoma, and health effects. We also did not consider articles that merely assessed the physiologic effects and reviewed the bibliographies for additional publications. The language of publication was English and Persian.

2.2. Selection Criteria

We included studies that had the following criteria: cross-sectional, cohort, and crossover studies to refer to the impact of mobile phone radiation on skin diseases. If the data were duplicated, the first published study was entered in the analysis. Studies retrieved from the databases that had the predetermined selection criteria were assessed by two of the authors independently. If the authors had disagreed, they resolved by discussion or in consultation with a third author.

The exclusion criteria were included: nonrelevant articles on the type of study and subject of research, low-quality studies based on the CASP checklist, and studies that did not contain enough information. In the larger studies included in this survey were any conducted solely by telephone.

2.3. Quality Evaluation of Articles

The quality of the articles was evaluated based on the CASP scale by two researchers. This checklist contains 11 sections for cross-sectional studies and 12 sections for cohort studies.

2.4. Data Extraction

The information consisted of the name of the first author, where (country) the study was conducted, and the date of publication, sample size, and the method of data collection ( Table 1 ).

Studies on the effects of mobile on skin diseases.

Figure 1 shows a flow chart that we searched and selected appropriate articles. In the first step, a total of 150 articles were found by searching databases and bibliographies. 75 articles were excluded because those had not inclusion criteria. We reviewed the full text of selected articles, as shown in Figure 1 , 6 articles were included in the systematic review.

Flow chart of the process of study entering in a systematic review study.

The sample size in the 6 studies (one cohort study and five cross-sectional studies) was 392119, and the details of the articles are presented in Table 1 . All studies were done on both sexes and the mean age was 35 years. The diseases that were assessed in these studies included skin cancer, dermatitis, itching, warmth and burning feeling, and rash ( Table 2 ).

Methodology of studies included in the systematic review.

• In a nationwide cohort study, 355,701 mobile phone users in Denmark from 1987 to 2007 were followed up. After a period of at least 20 years, little evidence of skin cancer risk was observed among the mobile phone users [ 6 ].
• In a cross-sectional study that was conducted in 2008 on 2000 Swedish adolescence aged 15–19 years, the most participants assessed, they had skin complaints as rash and dermatitis [ 10 ].
• A cross-sectional study was initiated in 1995 including 11982 GSM and NMT users in Sweden and 2500 in Norway, the authors observed a low-risk warmth on the behind and around the ear [ 11 ].
• A cross-sectional study on 17,000 people in Norway and Sweden showed 31% mobile phone users in Norway, and 13% of those in Sweden had experienced at least one symptom that included the sensations of warmth on the ear and behind/around the ear, burning sensations in the facial skin. Most skin symptoms usually began during or after the call and lasted for up to 2 h but these results suggest an awareness of the symptoms, but not necessarily a serious health problem [ 12 ].
• A survey was conducted among a total of 330 medical students at the King Saud University. This study presents an overview about the impact of radiofrequency waves on the health of medical students in Saudi Arabia. The most of skin symptoms were reported including facial dermatitis [ 13 ].

4. Conclusions

In this systematic review, we searched articles in databases. Abstracts and text of the articles were examined from various aspects. Eight articles were evaluated for quality, and then, six papers entered a systematic review.

In the present study, the studied population was of both sexes with an average age of 35 years; therefore, this shows the importance of the issue. These persons have high performance in communities, so their illness increases the burden of the disease.

All studies were cross-sectional or cohort, and there were different morbidity indexes between mobile radiation and skin diseases. The duration of exposure to mobile radiation was very different for skin signs; therefore, we did not have the possibility of meta-analyzing studies. Oftedal et al. in 1999, with a sample size of 17,000, reported the prevalence of skin problems caused by mobile use [ 12 ] However, in a cohort study, Poulsen et al. reported the incidence of skin cancer [ 6 ].

We found that the use of mobile phones was associated with a mildly increased risk of skin problems. This is the first systematic review on the effects of mobile phone radiation on skin diseases.

From 6 articles that enter to systematic review, two studies did not reveal a serious health problem [ 12 , 13 ]. In two other studies, these pointed to warmth sensation after the use of mobile phones [ 6 , 11 ]. Cell phones play an important role in people's lives since the last few decades, and people have been exposed for so long, so addressing their effects on health can prevent harmful effects among mobile phone users. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classified that the mobile-emitted radiation could be some risk of carcinogenicity, so further studies into heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted [ 14 ].

Previous studies have reported that collagen tissue increased in cells exposed to mobile radiation. Mobile phone radiation for one hour causes morphological changes and increased fibroblast activity of the skin. Another study also found that exposure to 900 MHz mobile phone radiation creates exocytosis in skin cells. Some studies have shown that the degree of destruction caused by mobile radiation is related to the duration of exposure to radiation [ 4 ]. Epidemiological studies conducted on humans and animals indicate that electromagnetic waves produce a wide range of side effects in different systems of the body [ 15 ], but they have not achieved a definite result [ 16 ]. Skin reactions in the ears and around it are the most common symptoms reported among mobile phone users during a telephone call [ 12 , 17 ]. As worldwide rates of mobile phone users rise, Richardson showed that mobile phone-associated contact dermatitis is increasing. In order to control allergens in phones, many phones have metals such as nickel that are sufficient to induce contact dermatitis; Therefore, patients with dermatitis of the face, neck, hands, breasts, or anterior thighs, should be examined for exposure to mobile [ 18 ].

In patients with profuse sweating, it provides a predisposing condition, and the penetration of nickel to the skin increases the occurrence of contact dermatitis. Therefore, mobile phone dermatitis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of contact dermatitis. The patch test and dimethylglyoxime test may be helpful in establishing the diagnosis [ 19 ].

In the study of Hardel et al. in 2011, he concluded that there is no relationship between the use of mobile phones and skin cancer [ 20 ].

Overall evaluations showed that the effects of mobile phone radiation on skin diseases are weak and have no statistical significance. Some studies have shown weak impacts, and some studies have found that over ten years of mobile use have been effective, but mobile phones are still a new technology and little evidence about long-term side effects is available, as a result, prevention is the best approach. Epidemiological studies on this topic are limited, and its long-term effects have not been evaluated, and there is a gap in the assessment relationship between mobile phone radiation and skin diseases. People are worried about the health effects of mobile phones, especially since it is part of daily life. As a result, the implementation of standard policies and strategic planning for primary health care by government officials on this topic is necessary to reduce people's concerns in order to provide suitable solutions for high-risk people. These programs require extended studies on mobile phone technology and its impact on the safety of mobile users. Our study has limitations. First, only few studies on the study of mobile phone radiation and skin disease are available. Second, we did not have the ability to access the full text of some articles and low levels of evidence.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. The authors thank the Sabzevar University's Clinical Research Center.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Radiation-Emitting Products
• Radiation-Emitting Products and Procedures
• Home, Business, and Entertainment Products
• Cell Phones

Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?

Some people are concerned that radio frequency energy from cell phones will cause cancer or other serious health hazards. Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC.

Key points:

• Cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of non-ionizing radiation.
• The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than tissue heating.
• Public health data show no association between exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems.

Cell Phones and Radio Frequency Energy

Cell phones emit low levels of non-ionizing radiation when in use. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones is also referred to as radio frequency (RF) energy. As stated by the National Cancer Institute, "there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans. The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating."

See Radio Frequency Energy and Cell Phones for the basics on radio frequency energy and non-ionizing radiation.

Scientific Consensus on Cell Phone Safety

Scientific studies: The FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of nearly 30 years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as cancer.

Public health data: The FDA also monitors and analyzes public health data on cancer rates in the U.S. population. The data clearly demonstrate no widespread rise in brain and other nervous system cancers in the last 30 years despite the enormous increase in cell phone use during this period. In fact, the rate of brain and other nervous system cancers diagnosed in United States has decreased for the last 15 years or so.

See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety for details on the scientific studies and public health data.

Determinations by other organizations: Many national and international organizations also monitor radio frequency research. This section highlights some of these agencies’ considerations.

• National Cancer Institute (NCI): Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Wireless Devices and Health Concerns
• World Health Organization (WHO): Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
• International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Mobile Phones
• Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission: Conclusions on Radio Frequency (RF) Fields
• Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), European Union: Final opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
• National Toxicology Program (NTP): Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation

See Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety for more details.

March 29, 2018

New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer

Researchers call for greater caution, but skeptics say the evidence from rat studies is not convincing

By Charles Schmidt

Getty Images

Does cell phone radiation cause cancer? New studies show a correlation in lab rats, but the evidence may not resolve ongoing debates over causality or whether any effects arise in people.

The ionizing radiation given off by sources such as x-ray machines and the sun boosts cancer risk by shredding molecules in the body. But the non-ionizing radio-frequency (RF) radiation that cell phones and other wireless devices emit has just one known biological effect: an ability to heat tissue by exciting its molecules.

Still, evidence advanced by the studies shows prolonged exposure to even very low levels of RF radiation, perhaps by mechanisms other than heating that remain unknown, makes rats uniquely prone to a rare tumor called a schwannoma, which affects a type of neuron (or nerve cell) called a Schwann cell.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The studies are notable for their sizes. Researchers at the National Toxicology Program, a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, tested 3,000 rats and mice of both sexes for two years—the largest investigation of RF radiation and cancer in rodents ever undertaken in the U.S. European investigators at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy were similarly ambitious; in their recent study they investigated RF effects in nearly 2,500 rats from the fetal stage until death.

Also noteworthy is that the studies evaluated radiation exposures in different ways. The NTP looked at “near-field” exposures, which approximate how people are dosed while using cell phones. Ramazzini researchers looked at “far-field” exposures, which approximate the wireless RF radiation that bombards us from sources all around us, including wireless devices such as tablet and laptop computers. Yet they generated comparable results: Male rats in both studies (but not mice or female animals) developed schwannomas of the heart at statistically higher rates than control animals that were not exposed.

Taken together, the findings “confirm that RF radiation exposure has biological effects” in rats, some of them “relevant to carcinogenesis,” says Jon Samet, a professor of preventive medicine and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, who did not participate in either study. Samet, however, cautioned the jury is still out as to whether wireless technology is similarly risky to people. Indeed, heart schwannomas are exceedingly rare in humans; only a handful of cases have ever been documented in the medical literature.

When turned on, cell phones and other wireless devices emit RF radiation continually, even if they are not being actively used, because they are always communicating with cell towers. The dose intensity tails off with increasing distance from the body, and reaches a maximum when the devices are used next to the head during phone calls or in front of the body during texting or tweeting.

Launched at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s request 10 years ago, the NTP study dosed rats and mice of both sexes with RF radiation at either 1.5, 3 or 6 watts of radiation per kilogram of body weight, or W/kg. The lowest dose is about the same as the Federal Communications Commission’s limit for public exposure from cell phones, which is 1.6 watts W/kg. The animals were exposed nine hours a day for two years (about the average life span for a rat), and the exposures were cranked up steadily as the animals grew, so the absorbed doses per unit body weight remained constant over time.

Initially leaked in 2016 , results from that $25-million study provided the most compelling evidence yet that RF energy may be linked to cancer in lab rodents. The strongest finding connected RF with heart schwannomas in male rats, but the researchers also reported elevated rates of lymphoma as well as cancers affecting the prostate, skin, lung, liver and brain in the exposed animals. Rates for those cancers increased as the doses got higher but the evidence linking them with cell phone radiation specifically was weak by comparison, and the researchers could not rule out that they might have increased for reasons other than RF exposure. Paradoxically, the radiation-treated animals also lived longer than the nonexposed controls. The study results were reviewed by a panel of outside experts during a three-day meeting that ended on March 28. They concluded there was "clear evidence" linking RF radiation with heart schwannomas and "some evidence" linking it to gliomas of the brain. It is now up to the NTP to either accept or reject the reviewer's conclusions. A final report is expected within several months.

Limited to rats only, the Ramazzini study tested three doses expressed as the amount of radiation striking the animal’s bodies: either 5, 25 or 50 volts per meter. The exposure measures therefore differed from the absorbed doses calculated during the NTP study. But the Ramazzini scientists also converted their measures to W/kg, to show how the doses compared with RF limits for cell phones and cell towers set by the FCC and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; they ranged down to a 1,000 times lower. The exposures began when the rats were fetuses and continued for 19 hours a day until the animals died from natural causes.

As in the NTP study, Ramazzini investigators detected statistically elevated rates of heart schwannomas in male rats at the highest dose. They also had weaker findings linking RF exposure to cancer of glial cells in the brain, which were limited to females. Ronald Melnick, a retired NTP toxicologist who designed the NTP study, says a measure of consistency between the two studies is important, because “reproducibility in science increases our confidence in the observed results.”

Just why Schwann and glial cells appear to be targets of cell phone radiation is not clear. David Carpenter, a physician who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, S.U.N.Y., explained the purpose of these cells is to insulate nerve fibers throughout the body. These are electrical systems, so that may be some sort of factor, he wrote in an e-mail. “But this is only speculation.”

A few epidemiology studies have reported higher rates of tumors inside the skull among people who use cell phones heavily for 10 years or more. Of particular concern are benign Schwann cell tumors called acoustic neuromas, which affect nerve cells connecting the inner ear with structures inside the brain. These growths can in some instances progress to malignant cancer with time. But other studies have found no evidence of acoustic neuromas or brain tumors in heavy cell phone users.

Samet adds a major challenge now would be to draw a biologically relevant connection between acoustic neuromas and other glial tumors in the brains of humans with Schwann tumors in rat hearts. “The mechanism is uncertain,” he says. “There’s a lot of information we still need to fill in.”

Since 2011 RF radiation has been classified as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Based on the new animal findings, and limited epidemiological evidence linking heavy and prolonged cell phone use with brain gliomas in humans, Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, says IARC should consider changing the RF radiation designation to a “probable” human carcinogen. Even if the hazard is low, billions of people are exposed, she says, alluding to the estimated number of wireless subscriptions worldwide. Véronique Terrasse, an IARC spokesperson, says a reevaluation may occur after the NTP delivers its final report.

Stephen Chanock, who directs the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, remains skeptical, however. Cancer monitoring by the institute and other organizations has yet to show increasing numbers of brain tumors in the general population, he says. Tracking of benign brain tumors, such as acoustic neuromas, was initiated in 2004 by investigators at the institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, which monitors and publishes statistics on cancer incidence rates. According to Chanock’s spokesperson, the acoustic neuroma data “haven’t accumulated to the point that we can say something meaningful about them.”

Asked if brain cancer’s long latency might explain why higher rates in the population have not appeared yet, Chanock says, “Cell phones have been around a long time. We are by no means dismissing the evidence, and the Ramazzini study raises interesting questions. But it has to be factored in with other reports, and this is still work in progress.”

Epidemiology studies investigating cell phone use patterns with human cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. Some studies enrolled people who already had tumors with suspected links to RF radiation, such as gliomas, acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors. Researchers compared the self-reported cell phone use habits of the cancer patients with those of other people who did not have the same diseases. Other studies enrolled people while they were still healthy, and then followed them over time to see if new cancer diagnoses tracked with how they used cell phones. All the epidemiology studies, however, have troubling limitations, including that enrolled subjects often do not report their cell phone use habits accurately on questionnaires.

In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study’s results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer—which by now amounts to hundreds of studies—has “given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. “We continue to agree with the FDA statement,” he says.

Frequently Asked Questions about Cell Phones and Your Health

There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.

Yes – cell phones and cordless phones use radiofrequency radiation (RF) to send signals. RF is different from other types of radiation (like x-rays) that we know can be harmful. We don’t know for sure if RF radiation from cell phones can cause health problems years later. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as a “possible human carcinogen.” (A carcinogen is an agent that causes cancer.)

At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects. It is also important to consider the benefits of cell phones. Their use can be valuable in an urgent or emergency situation – and even save lives.

If you are worried about cell phone use, follow the tips below.

Why has the information on this page been updated?

CDC has not changed its position on health effects associated with the use of cell phones. The agency updated these cell phone FAQs in June 2014 as part of efforts to ensure that health information for the public followed best practices, including the use of plain, easy-to-understand, language. During this process, revisions were introduced which inadvertently led some visitors to the web page to believe that a change in position had occurred. The corrected FAQs are now available on this page.

CDC announces changes in public health policy and recommendations through publication in the peer-reviewed literature, usually accompanied by outreach to partners and a media announcement. We apologize for any confusion that resulted from our efforts to ensure that agency information is presented in easy-to-understand language. 

View previous version of FAQ pdf icon [PDF – 735K]

To reduce radio frequency radiation near your body:

• Get a hands-free headset that connects directly to your phone.
• Use speaker-phone more often.
• In the past, RF interfered with the operation of some pacemakers. If you have a pacemaker and are concerned about how your cell phone use may affect it, contact your health care provider.

Scientists are continuing to study the possible health effects of cell phone use. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) is currently looking into how cell phones may affect:

• Some types of tumors (a lump or growth)

In the News: Acoustic Neuroma

Where can i get more information about cell phones and health.

For more information, visit:

• The Federal Communications Commission external icon
• World Health Organization external icon
• The Food and Drug Administration external icon

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Safety & Prevention

Cell phone radiation & children’s health: what parents need to know.

​Children are not just little adults; their growing minds and bodies make them uniquely vulnerable to the effects of the environment around them, including cell phone radiation. Because technology is being adopted by children at younger ages than ever before, it's even more important to investigate if cell phone usage is a health hazard.

What is cell phone radiation, anyway?

There are two types of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing. 

Ionizing radiation (e.g., x-rays, radon, sunlight) is high frequency (and high energy).

Non-ionizing is low frequency (low energy) radiation.

Cell phones have non-ionizing radiation. Your phone sends radio frequency waves from its antenna to nearby cell towers. When you make a call, text, or use data, your phone receives radio frequency waves to its antenna from cell towers.

What does the latest research say?  

Several studies have been done to find out if cell phone use can lead to cancer. These types of studies in people have not shown clear evidence of an increased cancer risk with cell phone use. While there was a slight increase in a type of brain tumor, called a glioma, in a small group of people who spent the most total time on cell phone calls in one study, other studies have not found this to be true. 

In May 2016, the US National Toxicology Program, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), released partial findings from a two-year  study  that exposed rats to the types of radio frequency radiation that cell phones give off and compared them with a non-exposed group. Some rats developed cancerous tumors after being exposed to the radiation—showing a potential connection between exposure to radiation and an increased risk of cancer.

A few words of caution about this study:

This study was only done on rats. While rats can be good test subjects for medical research, they are not the same as humans. We do not yet know if the same results would occur in people.

The rats were exposed to very large amounts of radiation—nine hours a day, seven days a week, for two years. This is far more than most people spend holding their cell phones.

More male rats developed cancerous tumors after being exposed to the radiation than female rats. Some of the rats who developed tumors lived longer than the control group rats that were not exposed to radiation.

The analysis of all of the data from this study is not yet complete.

Why is more research needed?

Parents should not panic over the latest research, but it can be used as a good reminder to limit both children's screen time  and exposure from cell phones and other devices emitting radiation from  electomagnetic fields (EMF) . Partial findings from studies like this one give scientists reason to look into the issue more. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children's health.

How can we limit cell phone radiation for ourselves and our children?

The AAP reinforces its existing recommendations on limiting cell phone use for children and teenagers. The AAP also reminds parents that cell phones are not toys, and are not recommended for infants and toddlers to play with.

Cell phone safety tips for families:

Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.

When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.

Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.

Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can't guarantee that the amount of radiation you're absorbing will be at a safe level.

Do not talk on the phone or text while driving . This increases the risk of automobile crashes.

Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.

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.

Keep an eye on your signal strength (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. It's better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.

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. 

Are there any regulations in place to limit cell phone radiation in the United States?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decides how much radiation cell phones are allowed to give off in the US. Currently, the FCC limit is at 1.6 W/Kg. The FCC, however, has not revised the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996, and a lot has changed since then.

There are now more cell phones in the United States than there are people.

The number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones has increased.

Cell phone and wireless technology have had huge changes over the years. For example, how many cell phone models have you had since 1996?

Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices' possible effect on large adults—not children. Children's skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation. ​

Where the AAP stands:

The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children's health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure. Providing parents with information about any potential risks arms them with the information they need to make informed decisions for their families. The AAP advocates for more research into how cell phone exposure affects human health long term, particularly children’s health. ​

Additional Information & Resources:

Cell Phones: What's the Right Age to Start?

Parents of Young Children: Put Down Your Smartphones

Cell Phones (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)   

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet (National Cancer Institute)  ​

$25 million study finds cell phone radiation causes cancer in rats

Read the article

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Mobile phones

Find out more

Smartymeter Infographic and Action Pack

Say no to smart meters EM Radiation Research Trust Infographic 'Smartymeter,' click on the links within the cartoon for information. NB. The Smartymeter infographic contains artistic…

EM Radiation Research Trust Conferences, Interviews and Seminars

EM Radiation Research Trust Conferences, Interviews and Seminars   January 2024- How to Fight Smart Meters Success Strategies by Eileen O'Connor, founder of Radiation Research…

MYTH: 5G is safe

We are a registered charity aiming to provide facts about electromagnetic radiation and the adverse risks it has on our health and the environment. Our…

‘Save the Male’ Ad Campaign

Please feel free to download, print out, and put up the Save the Males save_males. NB. The Save the Males poster contains copyright. The image, words…

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | EMF Hazards Summit 2024

Rip maria. we will say your name. we will share your story, parent poll on smartphones — march 2024, the race to make smartphones illegal for children under 16 – and why it matters, featured articles, the great resist conference – saturday 20th april, 2024, em radiation research trust chairman mr brian stein cbe…, the powerwatch handbook: simple ways to make you and…, dr. sam bailey – eileen o’connor interview about emf, resonance beings of frequency (documentary film), book – the microwave delusion, rfk, jr. joins em radiation research trust in calling…, 2020 consensus statement of uk and international medical and….