We talked with Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, manager of the Center for household and Community wellness at the University of California, Berkeley, about the impact of electrosmog on our lives, the latest technological investigation and the government’s electromagnetic radiation limits, which are not safe.
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. — the manager of the Center for household and Community Health, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley. Dr. Moskowitz has conducted investigation on illness prevention programs and policies for more than 40 years, most late focusing on adverse wellness effects of cell telephone and wireless radiation. In 2009 he served as the elder author on a hallmark paper reviewing investigation on mobile telephone usage and increased brain tumor hazard published in the diary of Clinical Oncology. He has disseminated investigation related to wireless technology, public health, and policy since 2009. He is an advisor to the global EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 240 scientists who published peer-reviewed investigation on EMF and biology or health. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website is simply a valuable resource for scientists, journalists, and the public.
Rafał Górski, Maksymilian Fojtuch: Let’s start with 2 photos. The first shows a building belonging to the territory Heating Company in Gdynia. You can see 2 masts.
The second photograph in a more agrarian territory of Gdynia, in northern Poland: Wiczlino, Gdynia.
What wellness problems are certain to happen for residents and students exposed to this close origin of electromagnetic radiation, commonly called electrosmog?
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD: Since 2013, I have run the website Saferemr.com, which provides a curated list of links to technological articles on the wellness risks of cell phones, cordless phones, cell tower base stations, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, electrical and hybrid cars, and various wireless devices.
Reviews of the technological studies on the wellness effects of cell telephone towers (e.g.„Biological effects from vulnerability to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and another antenna arrays” ; „Evidence for a wellness hazard by RF on humans surviving around mobile telephone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer”) have shown headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased suicide rates, dizziness, memory changes, and increased hazard of cancer.
How does electromagnetic radiation affect children and students aged 6,7–15 years in terms of their physical and intellectual health?
There is evidence that electromagnetic radiation can have a negative impact on cognitive development in children. Children with higher vulnerability to telecommunication towers had shorter sleep, worse motor skills, difficulty concentrating, deteriorated skills of hand-eye coordination [hand-eye coordination refers to the ability to synchronize the hands with what the eye sees – editor’s note] and other wellness issues. You can find a summary of these 7 studies on my website.
Does distance from cell telephone base stations play a crucial function in radiation?
Yes, the signal density from a cell telephone tower decreases rapidly with distance from the tower due to the inverse square law. However, cell telephone users are likely to be exposed to more radiation from their cell phones if the signal strength from the nearest base station is weak.
Scientists urge locating cell towers at least 500 meters distant from places where people work, live or engage in outdoor physical activity.
What advice would you give to individual surviving 100 m, 200 m and 300 m from specified structures?
Monitor the biological effects of radiation.
Consider changing your residence or shielding your home. Reduce your vulnerability to radiation from wireless devices, including Wi-Fi routers and mobile phones.
I asked artificial „intelligence” how many wireless devices are produced daily. I received a consequence that, according to various sources, in 2023, about 40-50 million smartphones were produced worldwide per month, which translates to around 1.3-1.6 million smartphones per day. In addition to that, there are tablets, laptops, wireless headphones, smartwatches, cell towers, and routers. In total, the production of wireless devices may scope respective million units per day.
What impact does this have on our children’s health?
Wireless technology appears to have an tremendous adverse impact on our children’s health. many studies have found that the physical and intellectual wellness of children and adolescents is adversely affected by excessive screen time in addition to the electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure associated with usage of this addictive technology. Since children are far more susceptible due to their developing bodies and minds, their access to this technology should be very limited.
What are the 3 most crucial technological studies indicating that electrosmog has a negative impact on health?
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the U.S. published a $30 million multi-year study which found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused heart cancer and “some evidence” that it caused brain cancer in male rats and DNA harm in male and female mice and rats. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the cancer findings using much lower-level vulnerability to cellphone radiation.
It’s hard to choice the 3 most crucial technological studies that electrosmog has a negative impact on our wellness due to the fact that there are thousands of studies to choose from. See my list of the most crucial studies which focuses on tumor risk, reproductive wellness effects, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
For an excellent overview of the biological and wellness risks from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) see the seminal publication of the global Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF.org), “Scientific evidence invalidates wellness assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP vulnerability limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G:” It is worth quoting its summary here: „In the late 1990s, the national Communications Commission (FCC) and the global Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) adopted vulnerability limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) intended to defend the public and workers from the adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on the results of behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s, which included exposures of 40 to 60 minutes in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to the observed circumstantial Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4W/kg. The limits were besides based on 2 main assumptions: that any biological effects would consequence from excessive heating of tissues and that no effects would happen below the SAR threshold, as well as 12 assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP.
“In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extended investigation on RFR [radiofrequency radiation] demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s [U.S. national Communications Commission] and ICNIRP’s vulnerability limits are invalid and proceed to present a public wellness harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically crucial associations between RFR [radiofrequency radiation] vulnerability and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.”
Nevertheless, in 2020, in light of the evidence presented in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these vulnerability limits, based on false assumptions, do not adequately defend workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general public from short-term or long-term vulnerability to RFR. vulnerability limits that defend human wellness and the environment are so urgently needed. These limits must be based on technological evidence and not on false assumptions, especially in the face of expanding human and environmental vulnerability to RFR, including fresh forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which adequate wellness effects studies are lacking.”
Who are you? What happened that made you curious in this topic? Why should Polish people trust you?
I got into this field by accident. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my investigation focused on tobacco-related illness prevention. I first became curious in cellphone radiation in 2008, erstwhile Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a doctor scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for household and Community Health, the investigation center I direct at the University of California, Berkeley. He was active in our smoking cessation research, and we worked with him and his colleagues on 2 reviews of the literature, 1 of which addressed the tumor hazard from cellphone use.
At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could origin cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and another wireless devices.
Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that dense cellphone usage was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that utilized higher quality methods and investigation with no telecommunications manufacture funding.
After reading many animal toxicology studies which found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA harm — I became increasingly convinced that what we found in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.
In 2020, we updated our review, published in the International diary of Environmental investigation and Public Health, based on a meta=analysis (i.e. quantitative) analysis of the results from 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as in our 2009 review — and obtained akin findings. Our main takeaway from this review is that about 1,000 hours or more of life cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically crucial 60% increase in brain tumor risk. Since 2016, six another meta-analyses came to akin conclusions since 2016, including a 2024 review.
What is ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), and what do you think about this article?
ICNIRP is simply a non-governmental organization based in Germany that promotes industry-friendly vulnerability limits for non-ionizing radiation (NIR). ICNIRP’s self-selected members and advisors believe that their guidelines request to defend humans only from heating (or thermal) effects due to acute vulnerability to NIR. ICNIRP scientists argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or wellness effects from chronic vulnerability to non-thermal levels of NIR are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. NIR includes RFR utilized in wireless communication devices in addition to power line frequencies.
In 2019 investigative journalists from 8 European countries published 22 articles in major newspapers and magazines that exposed ICNIRP’s conflicts of interest. More recently, Dr. James Lin, an emeritus prof. of electrical engineering, bioengineering, and physiology and biophysics and erstwhile ICNIRP Commissioner, has accused ICNIRP of „groupthink,” a intellectual phenomenon that occurs erstwhile a group prioritizes harmony over critical reasoning that can lead to irrational or dangerous decisions.
The article you asked about by Nordhagen and Flydal pulls back the curtain revealing this modern-day “Wizard of Oz” to be a fraud—all smoke and mirrors. They conclude:
„… the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines neglect to meet fundamental technological quality requirements and are so not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic field] vulnerability limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of investigation findings, and would so request a peculiarly solid technological foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.”
Nordhagen and Flydal exposed how ICNIRP biases its reviews of the literature to justify its weak RF-EMF vulnerability guidelines:
“Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers], and any of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members.”
In contrast to ICNIRP, more than 260 scientists from 45 nations who published peer-reviewed investigation on NIR and biology or wellness totalling over 2,000 technological papers have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls on the planet wellness Organization (WHO), the United Nations and all associate nations to adopt much stronger vulnerability guidelines for NIR that defend humans and another species from sub-thermal levels of NIR vulnerability and to issue wellness warnings about the risks of NIR exposure.
On January 1, 2021, the Polish government increased the population’s vulnerability limits to electromagnetic radiation 100 times. The permissible vulnerability level for EMF was 0.1 W/m² (watts per square meter) for frequencies utilized in mobile networks. After the change, the limit was increased to 10 W/m². At the same time, the government launched SI2PEM, or the Information strategy on Installations Generating Electromagnetic Radiation. This is simply a public database containing information on the electromagnetic field in the environment, run by the Ministry of Digital Affairs. As we read on the government website, „thanks to the system, all citizen will have access to information on where the base station is located, who it belongs to, erstwhile it passed all the essential measurements and certifications, and what their results were.”
What do you think about this?
As I mentioned, more than 260 EMF scientists believe that this vulnerability limit is inadequate to defend the wellness of humans and another species. That year these scientists commissioned ICBE-EMF to represent their position which is based on an nonsubjective evaluation of the body of technological investigation and calls for much stronger RF-EMF vulnerability limits.
Why do any people make EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity), while others do not?
Everyone is delicate to EMF due to the fact that our cells operate on bioelectricity. any of us may be more delicate to EMF depending on our biology (or genetic makeup) and our cumulative vulnerability to biologic toxins and to toxic chemical agents.
According to Physician’s Weekly (April 15, 2020):
„Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known in the past as “Microwave syndrome”, is simply a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of a wide spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms, typically including central tense strategy symptoms, that happen following the patient’s acute or chronic vulnerability to electromagnetic fields in the environment or in occupational settings….Repeated exposures consequence in sensitization and consequent enhancement of response. Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress….Patients can have neurologic, neuro-hormonal and neuro-psychiatric symptoms following vulnerability to EMF as a consequence of neural harm and over-sensitized neural responses.” [https://www.physiciansweekly.com/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-ehs-microwave-syndrome-review-of-mechanisms/]
How can people suffering from EHS, who are a minority, improve their situation in a democratic society? What will their future look like?
Unfortunately, the prevalence of EHS in Poland is likely to increase with the government’s adoption of the much weaker ICNIRP RF vulnerability limit.
A democratic society should prioritize protecting the wellness of its most susceptible members. People who have EHS experience functional impairments and any msy endure from major disabilities. Many require suitable accommodations.
“Our goal is to see EHS formally recognized as an EMF-induced external origin of injury by public wellness agencies worldwide, and greater designation of the needs of those who are EHS-disabled, so they have access to safer homes, healthcare, education, employment, opportunities, amenities, and equity of access in all public domains. specified designation should lead to increased public awareness, investigation funding, and strengthened calls for lower EMF vulnerability limits. EHS persons must be provided with low EMF spaces for residence, work, school and general public domain access. Low EMF essential spaces request to be urgently established—not just to reduce severity for people with EHS, but to broadly reduce the incidence of EHS.”
Are there any similarities between the tobacco manufacture and the telecommunications industry?
Having studied the behaviour of the tobacco manufacture for 4 decades and the telecom manufacture for the past 16 years, I have noted many similarities between these 2 global corporate entities. Both industries produce consumer products that are highly popular and very profitable. Their products are addictive erstwhile utilized as intended, and in the long-term harm non-users as well as those who usage them. Both industries expend considerable backing to influence governmental bodies to keep regulation that protects public and environmental wellness to a minimum but protects manufacture financial liability. Finally, both industries “war-game” the discipline and manipulate mainstream media utilizing industry-friendly “experts” to make confusion and distrust of the technological evidence that substantiates the harmfulness of their products.
Is there any universal/ global legal tool which could be utilized to defend the right to live in a healthy environment? The precautionary principle. According to this, corporations implementing wireless communications should prove that electromagnetic radiation is not harmful to human wellness and the environment. Today, they do not have specified evidence.
You reminded me of the interview I conducted with Prof. Marek Zmyślony entitled „For me, human wellness is the most crucial thing”.
The expert from the Institute of Occupational medicine besides refers to the precautionary principle. Belgian doctors besides mention to the precautionary rule in their Appeal informing against electrosmog.
In Poland, the Demagog Association discredits you in an article entitled „Do Bluetooth headphones harm? Is radiation safe”. I would like to ask for your comment.
In Poland, the website Demagog discredits you. What is your consequence to this?
Although I am not acquainted with Demagog, the organization seems well-intended in its fact-checking mission. Nonetheless, fact-checkers can get it incorrect erstwhile the discipline is complex, especially erstwhile the preponderance of evidence does not support manufacture and government interests.
The Demagog communicative you mention, “Bluetooth headphones are harmful? Radiation is safe,” cites an article I wrote in 2019 for the Scientific American website, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.” In this brief article, I responded to a pro-industry opinion part that claimed 5G is safe with a summary of the evidence why many EMF scientists believe that governmental vulnerability limits are inadequate. I did not discuss Bluetooth or wireless headphones in this article. Scientific American subsequently published a part that was replete with specious arguments that I rebutted on my website since Scientific American refused to proceed this debate. I encourage your readers to examine these articles and decide for themselves.
What about cordless headphones?
I have addressed the safety of Bluetooth wireless headphones in a series of posts on my website, “AirPods: Are Apple’s fresh Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier research).” Although the investigation is mixed, 16 studies have found that low strength RFR can open the blood-brain barrier which would enable toxic chemicals in the circulatory strategy to penetrate the brain so there is reason for concern. Although this wellness hazard requires further research, I urge on a precautionary basis the usage of wired headphones.
For safety recommendations from various reputable sources see my webpage, “Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure.”
What crucial question has no 1 asked you yet on this topic? And what
is your answer to that question?
In the 16 years I have been studying this topic, I have been interviewed by hundreds of journalists who have asked virtually all question imaginable. Unfortunately, we don’t have conclusive answers to many crucial questions due to limited investigation backing and active interference from government agencies as well as from industry.
Since its inception, the WHO EMF task which was initially funded by the telecommunications manufacture has promoted manufacture interests over public and environmental health. The ICBE-EMF late published letters to the editor critical of 2 fresh WHO investigation reviews:
In a newly-published paper, 1 of the world’s most renowned EMF scientists, Dr. James C. Lin, criticized the WHO’s systematic reviews of the RF-EMF investigation due to the fact that they dismiss the crucial evidence for adverse biological and wellness effects. He concluded:
„The criticisms and challenges encountered by the published WHO-EMF systematic reviews are brutal, including calls for retraction. Rigorous examinations of the reviews uncover major concerns. In addition to the technological quality, they appear to have a strong conviction of nothing but heat to worry about with RF radiation. The unsubtle message that cellular mobile phones do not pose a cancer hazard is clear. The reviews exhibit a deficiency of serious concerns for conflicts of interest and display unequivocal support for the late promulgated ICNIRP RF vulnerability guidelines for human safety.
From its inception, WHO-EMF had close ties with ICNIRP, a private organization, frequently referred to as the WHO-EMF project’s technological secretariat. What may not be as apparent for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews is the deficiency of diversity of views. A large number of ICNIRP commissioners and committee members are listed as authors for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews; any besides served as lead authors. These concerns advance issues of reviewer independency and possible for conflicts of interest.”
Environmental global published an article in May 2025 on the effects of electrosmog on cancer in animals and humans („Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field vulnerability on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review”). It is simply a broad review of the technological investigation on the subject to date. It was commissioned by the WHO. What are the results of this review?
In contrast, to the review by Karipidis et al. (2024), a WHO review of 52 laboratory animal studies, “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field vulnerability on Cancer in laboratory Animal Studies” by Mevissen et al. (2025), concluded there is “high certainty” of the evidence linking RF radiation vulnerability to 2 types of tumors: gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. Notably, the same types of tumors have besides been observed in human studies, adding crucial assurance that the associations observed in human studies are real.
Thank you for interview.
Rafał Górski, Maksymilian Fojtuch
![To jedna z najstraszniejszych chorób skóry. Człowiek zamienia się w drzewo [ZDJĘCIA]](https://images.iberion.media/images/origin/Shutterstock_d797ad4b88.jpg)
