Toxic Treadmill

The Hidden Harms of RF Mobile Communications, EMR, and EMFs

As any cursory glance at history can show you, humans have a strong addiction to doing horrendous things to each other. Often this is quite deliberate. Sometimes, accidental, or unintended. Wilful ignorance is deliberate, and ignoring the growing evidence for the harms that wireless tech causes, or contributes to, is little short of a global physical attack designed to cause misery, sickness, and death. It's reckless, criminal, cruel, and inhuman.

For more detailed background information, please read an introduction to electromagnetism and electromagnetic fields here >>>. It includes explanations of some of the most common terms of reference, along with an interactive animation of an electromagnetic wave, and how pulse, amplitude, frequency, and polarization can be visualized.

The energy transmitted and received in modern wireless communications is usually very low, and requires electronic amplification before being interpreted as a signal. It's this low energy property that has led to the mistaken assumption of safety. However, biological systems are extremely complex, often incredibly sensitive, and do respond to extremely low levels of electromagnetic energy, and weak magnetic fields. Indeed, many biochemical interactions are initiated and / or mediated by comparatively minuscule charge strengths, and our nervous system functions via electric signals and varying electrical potential.

Let's have a look at how sensitive the human body is, before moving on to a more specific expose on how little electromagnetic energy is capable of interfering with biological processes.

The Incredible Sensitivity of Human Biological Systems

Science is a long way off understanding the complex interactions of human biology. As time progresses, more evidence is emerging about the jaw-dropping sensitivity of our biological systems. In an avidity‐based detection assay for neuregulin 1 (NRG1), a biosensor platform utilizing liposome‐amplified surface plasmon resonance (SPR) was able to detect biologically active NRG1 at 3.5 pM. This is an approximate equivalent concentration as dissolving three granules of sugar in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. However, in terms of the smallest concentration that produces a measurable biological effect in human cells, evidence from studies on G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) and various receptor-mediated signalling pathways suggests even greater sensitivity.

Multiple examples from receptor signalling studies demonstrate that certain human receptors respond at sub-picomolar levels. For instance, responses mediated by the β2‐adrenoceptor have been detected at concentrations in the low picomolar range, with specific metabolic effects observed around 1 pM. Furthermore, a number of studies report that receptor‐mediated signalling events – such as changes in calcium flux, activation of protein kinases, and modulation of gene transcription – can be triggered by ligand concentrations as low as 10 femtomolar (0.01 pM, 1 femtomolar is 10^-15 molar) or even lower. That's a ratio of ten parts to one quadrillion parts (a quadrillion is a million billion or a thousand trillion). Now we're talking about the body being capable of responding to a biochemical that is so dilute it would be equivalent to one granule of sugar dissolved in water with the equivalent volume of one hundred Olympic-sized swimming pools!

Such extreme sensitivity is enabled by pre‐assembled receptor-effector complexes, which allow even a single or a few ligand-binding events to trigger a cascade of cellular responses. Studies have provided evidence that signalling endpoints – such as calcium signalling, cAMP accumulation, and gene transcription changes – are measurable at these extremely low ligand concentrations.

Neuroactive phytochemicals, or entheogens, such as psilocybin, can induce changes to the functionality of neurobiochemical pathways at picomolar concentrations. Remember, a picomolar is a dilution ratio of 1:100000000000!

Human auditory hair cells demonstrate extreme mechanical sensitivity by transducing nanometer‐scale vibrations into electrical signals. Natural basilar membrane hair cell bundles can oscillate with displacements as small as approximately 15–50 nm, enabling the detection of minute sound vibrations. Sound is different stuff from light, but this is a wavelength up to thirty times shorter than blue light.

It's also important to note that we're all different. Differences between our genomes, epigenetics, and environmental history, all have a substantial influence on how we each respond differently to the exact same stimuli. Not everybody who smoked forty a day got lung cancer. Most people are not allergic to peanuts. Some people react far less severely than others to insect stings. In none of these cases would we use a proportionately lower likelihood of harm to justify total population exposure. In other words, even if we thought putting peanut juice in the water supply was good (no, nobody is proposing this as far as I know), or that smoking was an essential freedom, it would be immoral to force those things on an entire population because they are harmful to some, and for a proportionately small number of people, they could be lethal. Similarly, the freedom to choose to use equipment and expose oneself to risk is very different when a technology will inevitably affect others around you. If someone blew smoke in a baby's face, it wouldn't generally be seen as acceptable, even where smoking is allowed for personal enjoyment. Less still, piping cigarette smoke throughout a school, as some institutions do with wireless internet.

Not only does our individual susceptibility to harm vary significantly to a whole range of factors, the chances of any exposure causing harm can vary for the same individual, depending on what else is going on with their body at the time. For example, altered sensory thresholds in people who suffer from migraine stand as a vivid example of the nervous system’s potential for extreme sensitivity modulation. Their neural processing of visual, auditory, and somatosensory inputs is profoundly altered. During an attack, the threshold for auditory discomfort can drop from a typical 111 dBA in healthy individuals (a loud rock concert or a power saw three feet away) to around 82 dBA (a loud telephone ringing). Decibels are logarithmic, so the pain induced for migraine sufferers occurs at a volume that is around 794 times less intense than the average person. Similar issues occur with a whole range of stimuli including light, smell, and touch. A relatively light touch can induce an experience of considerable pain in someone suffering with a migraine.

Whole-body Sensitivity to RF Radiation Exposure

A fact that is ignored by the likes of ICNIRP, industry lobbyists, politicians, many scientists, and laymen, is that whole-body sensitivity to exposure to non-ionizing radio frequency radiation is actually more sensitive than single cell exposure, by many orders of magnitude. This has numerous implications, the most obvious being that you cannot simply scale up experimental results from tissue cultures, animal experiments, or modelling based on decades-old, cherry-picked science, and expect to arrive at assumptions that bear any resemblance to real-world effects. Science is showing that the synergistic exposure of multiple systems, or masses of cells, acts more like an antenna in the sense that the larger the body is, the lower the necessary exposure for granular effects. You could think of it like a satellite dish. All other things being equal, the bigger the dish, the more sensitive they are to incoming data streams.

Biological Sensitivity to Magnetic Fields

Expanding on the previous point, science has shown that individual cells appear capable of responding to fields on the order of 3,000 nanoteslas (nT), whereas a coherent whole‐body response in humans has been estimated down to about 0.0003 nT, just three picoTesla! In this instance, the body operating as a collective is ten million times more sensitive than a single cell. An astonishingly low threshold, thought to involve resonance or coherence phenomena among cells. Using animal models, such as rodents, seizures have been observed with exposures at frequencies near 7 Hz and field strengths up to 50 nT, indicating that even tens of nanoteslas can trigger detectable changes in neurophysiological parameters that could affect survival.

In the human microbiome and bacteria, studies report alterations in growth, gene expression, and magnetosome size when exposed to fields below 500 nT – with some E. coli changes noted in the range of 30–95 nT. For fish and insects, while specific numbers are less documented in the excerpts, similar susceptibility to weak magnetic stimulation is implied by the broader literature reviewed; responses on the order of tens to hundreds of nanoteslas are likely within the detection range in these systems. Note also that the natural Earth magnetic field, approximately 25,000 to 65,000 nT (25–65 µT), provides the baseline to which many organisms are evolutionarily adapted. Moreover, lunar tidal effects modulate Earth’s magnetosphere and can induce night‐time electric field variations – for instance, full moon magnetotail crossings may yield approximately 12 hours during which these subtle magnetic fluctuations (and accompanying electric variations, with whole‐body thresholds around 0.008 V/m) are detectable biologically.

Biological Harms from Very Low Variation in Magnetic Field Strength

Magnetic Fields – In humans and other mammals, geomagnetic storm–level variations (approximately 100–300 nT) have been epidemiologically linked to cardiovascular events, epilepsy, and psychiatric disturbances. Additionally, in animal models, sustained exposures or rapid fluctuations within a similar range have been associated with increased mortality and other adverse outcomes. Static field exposures above the Earth’s ambient (~25–65 µT) but in the range of 0.1 mT (100 µT) have induced oxidative stress, DNA damage, and apoptosis in human cell lines – effects that could be considered harmful rather than merely detectable. Such mT-level exposures have been used in experimental settings to explore adverse ROS production and genomic instability.

Biological Sensitivity to Electric Fields

Electric Fields – On the cellular level, electric field detection thresholds range around 100 V/m, yet a coherent whole-body response may be elicited by field changes as low as 0.008 V/m. Although direct data in other species are less extensively detailed, the patterns observed in human systems suggest that mammals, and probably many other animals, may detect field variations in similar relative terms. In terms of natural exposure, the typical terrestrial electric field is about 130 V/m, indicating that organisms are routinely exposed to levels many orders of magnitude above the minimal detectable thresholds.

Biological Harms from Electric Field Changes

A change as low as 0.008 V/m can be detected by a whole-body system, but harmful effects in clinical or epidemiological contexts are more commonly associated with spikes that double normal background levels. For example, transient increases from less than 1 V/m to greater than 2 V/m. These kinds of deviations, especially during geomagnetic disturbances or lunar influences (e.g., new moon phenomena), have been correlated with disruptions such as melatonin suppression and altered cardiovascular events. In simple terms, the moon has a direct influence on exposure to 'natural' electric fields, and these variations can cause biological effects, including harms.

Biological Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Energy

Non-ionizing radiation, defined as electromagnetic energy that lacks sufficient energy to ionize atoms or molecules is associated with a wide spectrum of biological effects that can potentially contribute to acute or chronic diseases and discomfort in humans.

Detectability of very‐low frequency electromagnetic waves (from about 5 Hz to 10 kHz) has been observed via shifts in parameters such as EEG brain rhythms and calcium signalling. For example, atmospheric sferics near 10 kHz can modulate human brain alpha and beta bands, and even create reports of headaches in sensitive individuals. Although the exact field “strength” is not provided for the waves, the reported effects imply that the energy content of these natural oscillations – present in the Earth’s ambient environment – is sufficient for detection in various biological systems. (Sferics are broadband electromagnetic pulses generated by lightning, they can be detected hundreds to thousands of km away from source.)

A recurrent theme in the literature is the potential for nonthermal mechanisms to trigger cellular stress processes. For example, exposure to RF and microwave frequencies—even at low intensities—has been linked to the activation of heat shock proteins (HSPs), such as Hsp27, which are implicated in cellular stress pathways, and may ultimately promote oncogenesis, metastasis, and treatment resistance. (Heat shock proteins are so-called because they were first associated with heat shock, but their activation and involvement in biological processes does not actually require heat.) Additionally, modulation of gene and protein expression, including damage to DNA repair proteins (e.g. 53BP1/γH2AX), oxidative stress induction, and DNA fragmentation have been reported, potentially contributing to carcinogenesis and other chronic diseases.

Evidence also suggests that non-ionizing radiation may affect the nervous system. Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in various frequency bands has been associated with alterations in brain electrophysiology. For instance, changes in electroencephalogram (EEG) activity during sleep and wakefulness have been observed in controlled studies involving RF-EMF exposure from mobile communications devices, raising concerns about cognitive performance and neurophysiological homeostasis. These effects include altered brain glucose metabolism and disruptions in sleep architecture, potentially contributing to neurobehavioural alterations, such as impaired learning, memory deficits, and mood disturbances.

Reproductive health is another area where non-ionizing radiation has raised concerns. Both epidemiological and laboratory studies have reported decreased sperm quality, reduced motility, and increased rates of sperm apoptosis alongside disruptions in spermatogenesis. In females, there are experimental indications of diminished ovarian development and premature follicle demise, which could cumulatively lead to subfertility or infertility. Such findings point to the possibility of non-ionizing radiation affecting reproductive outcomes through genetic and cellular damage mechanisms.

Moreover, there are indications that chronic electromagnetic exposure might have immunomodulatory and metabolic effects. Reported outcomes include alterations in immune system function, oxidative stress leading to systemic inflammation, metabolic disturbances, and even changes in hormone levels that could contribute to long-term disease development. Although the epidemiological evidence is not always consistent, these findings indicate that subtle biological alterations may accumulate over time to produce noticeable health outcomes.

Finally, the skin is a target for high-frequency exposures, particularly with the advent of 5G technology. Studies are underway to evaluate whether 5G frequencies, which primarily deposit energy in the superficial layers of the skin, can alter cellular gene expression profiles, provoke inflammatory responses, or contribute to dermatological disorders. Taken together, the body of research indicates that non-ionizing radiation may act through multiple pathways (minimally thermal and nonthermal) to contribute to acute discomfort (e.g., headaches, skin irritation) and chronic conditions such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and reproductive dysfunction.

Variance and Inadequacy of Current Radiation Limits

Most countries follow ICNIRP guidance when setting limits to the continuous radiation they permit citizens to be exposed to. An overwhelming body of evidence suggests ICNIRP limits are too narrow, severely limiting consideration of the ways in which electromagnetism may be capable of causing biological harm. Following these guidelines is unscientific and reckless. Some nations have set their own, but there is significant variance among them, and all limits are vastly higher than the limit recommended by the Bioinitiative, based on the precautionary principle. It's one thing to start low and increase later if a substantial body of evidence can support this. However, starting with careless, narrow-minded limits, and reducing them later if substantial evidence of harm is proven, will not be of any comfort to those whose lives have been affected.

Electromagnetic Field and Radiation Exposure Limits by Country

Electric Field Limits (V/m)

* China's value is per antenna

Power Density Limits (W/m²)

RF Radiation & Microbial Mutation & Resistance

Health concerns over radiation from consumer products isn't solely due to the direct physical assault on the human body, but may arise due to its influence on pathogenic microbes. RF radiation, similar to that emitted by consumer products including frequencies of 900 Mhz (GSM) and 2.4 GHz (Wi-Fi), has been linked with the emergence of antibiotic resistance in cultures of E. coli and Listeria. 2.4 GHz radiation has been found to alter gene expression in E. coli. This suggests that RF-induced stress might trigger genetic or epigenetic responses, altering the virulence or survival traits of some microbes. If such changes are induced in the human microbiome, there could be serious implications for many areas of human health including skin disease, bowel disease, adverse neurological effects, chronic infection, and more. Additionally, experiments have found that exposing E. coli to a frequency of approximately 46 GHz (λ = 6.5mm), with a power flux density of 5 μW/cm² (0.05W/m²), modifies protein synthesis pathways, resulting in a two to threefold increase in colicin production.

Non-thermal, non-ionizing RF and millimeter-wave exposures can affect microbial growth rates and functional activity. Reported frequency-dependent responses in bacteria, and yeast, indicate potential for resonance effects, or coherent oscillations, in cellular systems. Current evidence does not conclusively demonstrate permanent genetic mutations. However, the observed modifications in protein expression profiles and antibiotic resistance patterns hint at underlying alterations in cellular regulatory mechanisms that could lead to long-term phenotypic changes.

Other Important Influences of Electromagnetic Radiation on the Environment

One of the contentious issues concerning the safety of non-ionizing radiation and weak magnetic fields concerns assumptions based on classical physics. If we take water as an example, classical physics would deny that weak magnetic fields and low-strength electric fields could have an effect on water molecules. This conclusion would be predominantly based on thermal dynamics; the heat energy in the environment would be too dominant a force for weak electromagnetic fields to have any significant effect. Similarly, at the molecular level, the power of weak electromagnetic fields would not be strong enough to interfere with dipole moments, or induce any other molecular changes. However, both theory and evidence suggest this way of viewing the world is incomplete.

Several experimental studies and theoretical analyses indicate that extremely weak electromagnetic stimuli can modulate the properties of water without necessarily producing detectable heating. A central aspect is the quantum coherence exhibited by water. Theoretical treatments based on quantum electrodynamics show that water forms large coherent domains (CDs) approximately 100 nm in diameter, which can capture electromagnetic energy from vacuum fields. These domains operate at specific oscillatory frequencies that align with those found in biological macromolecules, thereby potentially modulating reaction kinetics and enabling resonance-based energy transfer to specifically charged reactants. Quantum coherence is proposed as an influence on hydrogen bond dynamics, as coherent oscillations within these domains may alter the strength, lifetime, and reformation kinetics of hydrogen bonds—a critical factor for reaction rates and solvent structuring.

The movement of electrolyte ions within the coherent water environment is another key factor. Ion cyclotron resonance effects have been demonstrated in aqueous solutions, where weak combined static and alternating fields can resonate with cyclotron frequencies (in the 1–100 Hz range) of these ions. Such resonance modifies ion mobility and the behaviour of charged species in solution, which is further implicated in modulating biochemical processes and interactions with charged reactants.

In experiments focusing on hydrogen bond dynamics under alternating electric fields, simulation studies have shown that even when the macroscopic tetrahedral structure of water is preserved, the dynamics of hydrogen bond breaking and reformation, as well as proton switching, are modulated in a frequency-dependent manner. Particularly, fields with frequencies around 200 GHz enhance translational and rotational diffusion rates by accelerating hydrogen bond kinetics. These dynamic modifications provide a bridge to altered diffusion rates and reaction kinetics in water, which are susceptible to even slight electromagnetic perturbations.

Subtle cumulative effects of non-thermal electromagnetic fields are also observed in changes in crystallization patterns, evaporation rates, bubble formation, and the concentration of dissolved gases. Experiments using microwave fields at 2.45 GHz have demonstrated alterations in the nucleation and growth phases of crystallization, resulting in modified ice structures with slight shifts in melting peaks and smaller crystallite sizes. These findings indicate that hydrogen bonding environments and molecular clusters are perturbed under electromagnetic exposure, leading to measurable differences in phase transitions without significant thermal effects.

Additionally, changes in the dielectric constant and solvent polarization have been documented following exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. For example, increases of around 3.7% in the dielectric constant of water have been observed, likely due to reorganization of the hydrogen bond network leading to enhanced dipole alignment. This reconfiguration has important ramifications on the energy landscapes governing biochemical interactions and ion mobility in biological systems, including protein folding and enzyme efficacy.

Human infants are around 75% water. Adults between 60 and 70%.

Science Has a Long Way to Go!

Empirical science has provided us with many technologies designed to make life easier. Whether they have brought us a 'better' world is open to debate, especially considering the full potential impact of the metabolic process of manufacture, energy consumption, cumulative pollutants, persistent poisons, and lasting, unethical waste disposal that blights simple needs like food, water, and air with carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other health-destroying compounds.

One pattern is absolutely clear. There is a preponderance of haste and greed in pushing new substances, medicines, and technologies without anywhere near full knowledge of what the unintended consequences of their use will be. This has often had disastrous consequences, many of which remain problems decades, or even centuries after the activity that caused them has ceased. Exposing harms frequently takes massive efforts and considerable expense as advocates for justice have to battle with giant money-generating entities who use their profits to cultivate significant influence over scientists, publications, policymakers, and the public.

With the radiation used to connect wireless devices, we are toying with the most fundamental elements of reality, something we are far from truly understanding. The complexity of the biology is immense, subtle, and frequently surprising. Radiation is not a substance we can see, nor one that most people can effectively escape from. Urban areas are swamped with cell towers, routers, and billions of 'smart' devices. Even the outermost parts of our atmosphere are littered with tens of thousands of satellites that fire radiation at the Earth 24/7/365. Even when cigarette smoking was in full swing, people could find places to escape it if they wished to, but there is nowhere for most people to go in order to escape the onslaught of wireless radiation.

References

Please note that many of these sources summarize, or review, numerous other papers. It's a good idea to read them rather than dismiss them.

Akkilic, N., Liljeblad, M., Blaho, S., Holtta, M., Hook, F., & Geschwindner, S. (2019). Avidity-based affinity enhancement using nanoliposome-amplified SPR sensing enables low picomolar detection of biologically active neuregulin 1. Acs Sensors, 4(12), 3166-3174.

Bevington, M. (2015). Lunar biological effects and the magnetosphere. Pathophysiology, 22(4), 211-222.

Civciristov, S., & Halls, M. L. (2019). Signalling in response to sub‐picomolar concentrations of active compounds: Pushing the boundaries of GPCR sensitivity. British Journal of Pharmacology, 176(14), 2382-2401.

Danker-Hopfe, Heidi, Hans Dorn, Thomas Bolz, Anita Peter, Marie-Luise Hansen, Torsten Eggert, and Cornelia Sauter. "Effects of mobile phone exposure (GSM 900 and WCDMA/UMTS) on polysomnography based sleep quality: An intra-and inter-individual perspective." Environmental research 145 (2016): 50-60.

Danker-Hopfe, H., Dorn, H., Sauter, C. and Eggert, T., 2014. Probandenstudie zur Untersuchung des Einflusses der für TETRA genutzten Signalcharakteristik auf kognitive Funktionen-Vorhaben FM8846.

Environmental Health. (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: Implications for 5G. Environmental Health, 21(1), Article 92. "Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G." Environmental Health 21, no. 1 (2022): 92.

Geesink, H.J., Jerman, I. and Meijer, D.K., 2020. Water, the cradle of life via its coherent quantum frequencies. Water, 11, pp.78-108.

Gerwyn, M., & Maes, M. (2017). Mechanisms explaining muscle fatigue and muscle pain in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS): a review of recent findings. Current rheumatology reports, 19, 1-10.

Ho, M. W. (2011). Quantum coherent water, non-thermal EMF effects, and homeopathy. Science in Society, 51, 1999-2011.

Hu, C., Yang, J., Qi, Z., Wu, H., Wang, B., Zou, F., ... & Liu, Q. (2022). Heat shock proteins: Biological functions, pathological roles, and therapeutic opportunities. MedComm, 3(3), e161.

Junho, C.V.C., Azevedo, C.A.B., da Cunha, R.S., de Yurre, A.R., Medei, E., Stinghen, A.E.M. and Carneiro-Ramos, M.S., 2021. Heat shock proteins: connectors between heart and kidney. Cells, 10(8), p.1939.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2025). Gaps in Knowledge Relevant to the “ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz TO 300 GHz)”. Health Physics, 128(2), 190-202.

Jung, Y. H., Park, B., Kim, J. U., & Kim, T. I. (2019). Bioinspired electronics for artificial sensory systems. Advanced Materials, 31(34), 1803637.

Kim, K., Lee, Y.S., Kim, N., Choi, H.D. and Lim, K.M., 2022. 5G electromagnetic radiation attenuates skin melanogenesis in vitro by suppressing ROS generation. Antioxidants, 11(8), p.1449.

Kostoff, R.N. and Lau, C.G., 2017. Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. In Microwave effects on DNA and proteins (pp. 97-157). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Kostoff RN. Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation. (2019). PDF. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/61946.

Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M., & Tsatsakis, A. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters, 323, 35-40.

Kudryakov, I.V., Efimchenko, V.S., Fetisov, G.G., Korotkova, M.A. and Oganov, A.R., 2023. High-Density Ice Ih Obtained by Crystallization of Water in a High-Frequency Electromagnetic Field. Crystals, 13(5), p.821.

Mortazavi, S. M. J., Said-Salman, I., Mortazavi, A. R., El Khatib, S., & Sihver, L. (2024). How the adaptation of the human microbiome to harsh space environment can determine the chances of success for a space mission to Mars and beyond. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, 1237564.

Murugaiyah, V., & Mattson, M. P. (2015). Neurohormetic phytochemicals: An evolutionary–bioenergetic perspective. Neurochemistry international, 89, 271-280.

Nizhelska, O. I., Marynchenko, L. V., & Piasetskyi, V. I. (2020). Biological risks of using non-thermal non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.

Panagopoulos, D. J. (2013). Electromagnetic interaction between environmental fields and living systems determines health and well-being. Electromagnetic fields: Principles, engineering applications and biophysical effects.

Patrignoni, L., Hurtier, A., Orlacchio, R., Joushomme, A., Poulletier de Gannes, F., Lévêque, P., ... & Lagroye, I. (2024). Evaluation of mitochondrial stress following ultraviolet radiation and 5G radiofrequency field exposure in human skin cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 45(3), 110-129.

Peng, K. P., & May, A. (2019). Migraine understood as a sensory threshold disease. Pain, 160(7), 1494-1501.

Raković, D. (2021). The influence of electromagnetic (EM) radiation on biological systems and humans. Change: Birthing and Parenting at Times of Crisis, Cosmoanelixis & International Journal of Prenatal & Life Sciences, Athens.

Rowles, J.E., Keane, K.N., Gomes Heck, T., Cruzat, V., Verdile, G. and Newsholme, P., 2020. Are heat shock proteins an important link between type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer disease?. International journal of molecular sciences, 21(21), p.8204.

Sarimov, R. M., Serov, D. A., & Gudkov, S. V. (2023). Hypomagnetic conditions and their biological action. Biology, 12(12), 1513.

Shafiei, M., Ojaghlou, N., Zamfir, S. G., Bratko, D., & Luzar, A. (2019). Modulation of structure and dynamics of water under alternating electric field and the role of hydrogen bonding. Molecular Physics, 117(22), 3282-3296.

Shen, X. (2011, December). Increased dielectric constant in the water treated by extremely low frequency electromagnetic field and its possible biological implication. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 329, No. 1, p. 012019). IOP Publishing.

Singh, M.K., Shin, Y., Ju, S., Han, S., Choe, W., Yoon, K.S., Kim, S.S. and Kang, I., 2024. Heat shock response and heat shock proteins: Current understanding and future opportunities in human diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(8), p.4209.

Wood, A. W., & Karipidis, K. (Eds.). (2017). Non-ionizing radiation protection: summary of research and policy options.

Zadeh-Haghighi, H., & Simon, C. (2022). Magnetic field effects in biology from the perspective of the radical pair mechanism. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 19(193), 20220325.

Zhao, L., Ma, K. and Yang, Z., 2015. Changes of water hydrogen bond network with different externalities. International journal of molecular sciences, 16(4), pp.8454-8489.

BioInitiative Report

The Bioinitiative report is a document created by a team of scientists who are concerned about the health risks associated with exposure to electrosmog including electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation. Read the BioInitiative Report Here >>>

Professor Martin Pall on Electromagnetic Field Exposures & Voltage-Gated Calcium/Ion Channels

Scientists Sound the Alarm About 5G Technology

A Mechanism for the Health Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields

Dr Devra Davis on the Detrimental Health Implications of Mobile Phones

The Impact of Wireless Radiation on Brain Function & Behaviour

Biological & Health Effects of Electromagnetic Waves & Connection to Disease

The Health Risks Associated with Electromagnetic Fields