8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Cancer & Tumors

The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997)

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 1988

Share:

International EMF safety standards ignore non-thermal biological effects and may be thousands of times too weak to protect health.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

This comprehensive critique examines how international health authorities like ICNIRP set radiofrequency radiation safety standards. The analysis reveals that current exposure limits are based solely on preventing tissue heating, ignoring substantial evidence of non-thermal biological effects from studies of radio towers, TV antennas, and radar installations that show increased cancer and leukemia rates.

Why This Matters

This critique exposes a fundamental flaw in how we regulate EMF exposure. The science demonstrates that international safety standards are built on an outdated foundation that only considers heating effects, while systematically dismissing evidence of biological harm at much lower exposure levels. What this means for you is that the wireless devices and cell towers in your daily environment may be operating under safety standards that are orders of magnitude too weak to protect public health. The reality is that if radiofrequency radiation were a chemical, the evidence presented here shows it would have been classified as carcinogenic years ago. The regulatory approach described here represents a troubling departure from how we normally evaluate public health risks, essentially requiring proof of harm rather than proof of safety.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (1988). The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997).
Show BibTeX
@article{the_first_studies_were_carried_out_with_radio_and_television_antennas_investigating_increases_in_cancer_and_leukaemia_milham_1988_maskarinec_et_al_1994_hocking_et_al_1996_dolk_et_al_1997a_1997b_michel_ce4786,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {The first studies were carried out with radio and television antennas, investigating increases in cancer and leukaemia (Milham, 1988; Maskarinec et al., 1994; Hocking et al., 1996; Dolk et al., 1997a, 1997b; Michelozzi et al., 1998; Altpeter et al., 2000), as well as around radars (Kolodynski and Kolodynska, 1996; Goldsmith, 1997)},
  year = {1988},
  
  
}

Quick Questions About This Study

ICNIRP maintains what this critique calls the 'RF-Thermal View' - the preconceived belief that only tissue heating can cause biological effects. This approach allows them to dismiss all evidence of harm at lower, non-heating exposure levels.
Studies around radio towers, TV antennas, and radar installations showing increased cancer and leukemia rates. The critique notes this evidence would have led to carcinogenic classification if EMF were evaluated like a chemical substance.
EMF regulation follows a completely different method than toxic chemicals or drugs. While chemicals require proof of safety, EMF standards essentially require proof of harm, creating a double standard that favors industry interests.
It's when regulators use a preconceived concept to inappropriately dismiss evidence that challenges their view. ICNIRP uses the thermal-only belief to reject studies showing biological effects at non-heating exposure levels.
According to this analysis, no. The evidence suggests ICNIRP guidelines are set many orders of magnitude too high to provide sound public health protection, focusing only on preventing heating while ignoring other biological effects.