Smartphones, Wi-Fi and Pandora’s Box – What Do Electromagnetic Radiation (Electrosmog) Research Reveal?

We talk to Prof. Dariusz Leszczyński about how Wi-Fi affects our health, why the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s decision on phone radiation was a shock to business, and how to protect yourself from the negative impact of smartphones.

Justyna Pierzyńska: Could you tell us more about your research on electromagnetic radiation? Why did you become interested in this topic? What conclusions did your research lead to?

Dariusz Leszczyński: I became interested in this topic in the mid-1990s. While working at a Finnish government radiation agency, I was tasked with investigating the effects of electromagnetic waves on health.

In the 1990s, I co-authored a report reviewing what was known on this topic. While preparing the report, I realized that many diverse studies had been conducted to date, but fundamentally, we still knew very little about the effects of electromagnetic fields on human health, and systematic research needed to begin from scratch. This meant starting with studies on the most relevant cells for this research—human cells. Then the results would be closest to reality and useful for human health.

If the research goal was to determine whether something was harmful to human health, then, of course, human cells were the best choice.

What research did you and your research group conduct?

Cells can be scrutinized in many different ways, using various searches, but it’s often difficult to prove that the cellular response observed in a study was actually caused by the factor of interest — electromagnetic fields — and not, for example, by a temperature increase caused by microwave radiation. Therefore, to avoid this problem, research requires high-quality equipment. In our biological research, we used proteomics, a method that isolates hundreds or even thousands of proteins from cells.

We focused on how the quantity and activity (phosphorylation level) of various proteins changed after irradiation. This allowed us to see which proteins with specific functions in the cell were activated by electromagnetic radiation. Based on this, we developed hypotheses about how electromagnetic radiation might affect cells.

One of the first observations we made was that electromagnetic radiation activates the so-called 'stress response,’ the body’s response to signals that disrupt normal physiological processes.

We exposed cells to low-level radiation, which was within the limits of cell phone standards, yet still produced a stress response. This clearly indicates that electromagnetic radiation emitted by phones affects cells even within the limits permitted by currently used standards. This radiation is recognized by cells as a disruptive factor, activating biochemical pathways designed to prevent these disturbances.

The human studies we have also initiated are necessary to determine the precise processes occurring in human organs following exposure to electromagnetic fields at levels permitted by regulations.

Our pilot study showed that certain proteins in humans respond to radiation by increasing or decreasing their levels. We irradiated small sections of human skin with cell phone radiation at a level within the permitted limits. We then isolated proteins from these sections, and it turned out that there were changes in the levels of certain proteins. This indicates that the radiation we experience when using our phones can affect our body’s physiology. We still don’t know whether this is a negative or positive effect. The continuation of the human study was interrupted because the funding promised for further research remained only a promise.

What are you doing now?

I’m currently retired. However, I’m still the Chief Editor of the scientific journal I founded in 2014 – „Radiation and Health”, part of Frontiers in Public Health, published in Switzerland. I continue to research the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health. I write scientific articles and lecture at various conferences, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the USA, Norway, Iceland, Germany, and other countries. I also publish my observations and opinions on a science blog, which I’ve maintained since 2009.

You’ve been researching the health impact of electromagnetic radiation since the 1990s. Currently, public discourse accepts that radiation from devices like smartphones is not hazardous to health. This is the view of various official bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Similar assurances also come from the EU and its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Many YouTube influencers and science communicators on social media convince us that there’s no need to fear either cell phone radiation or the new 5G network.

On the other hand, the International Agency for Research on Cancer treats cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen (category 2B). Some experts unaffiliated with official bodies believe this category should be raised to 2A (definite carcinogen). Is it true that there is an international scientific consensus regarding the impact of electromagnetic radiation on health that says that exposure to continuous radiation from various devices in the environment is safe for the human body?

To the best of my knowledge, no such consensus exists. However, some organizations, such as the influential ICNIRP, argue that such a consensus exists and that electromagnetic radiation is not a problem. Other organizations, such as the newly formed commission called ICBE-EMF – International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, believe that electromagnetic radiation affects our health and, moreover, is very harmful.

I would say that at this time, it is not entirely clear whether electromagnetic fields are harmful to us or not.

The radiation standards currently permitted are indeed low. But that doesn’t mean they don’t affect living organisms. If cells exhibit a biological response to radiation, a so-called stress response, health effects are possible. Another question is who might become ill from this exposure; can everyone’s health be affected by this radiation? There’s currently no answer to this question.

Everyone is different. Some are sensitive to environmental factors, such as ultraviolet radiation, while others are not. Some are allergic to pollen, while others are not. Some smokers develop lung cancer, while others don’t, even though cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen.

The same is true about electromagnetic radiation. This is called individual sensitivity. Sensitive individuals will react to it. Any element of our environment, or any chemical we use as medicine, can trigger different reactions in different people. 

Is this also related to EHS, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity? Some doctors question its existence.

It’s known that not every medication will cure everyone, and not every factor will cause sensitization in everyone. We can say that people are differently sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, gamma radiation, and ultrasonic radiation. So why shouldn’t we be differently sensitive to microwaves and electromagnetic radiation?

The problem is that we don’t know how to identify and diagnose those people who are more sensitive.

Until now, research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields has focused primarily on whether they cause brain cancer. These studies are ongoing and, in my opinion, have not yet yielded definitive conclusions. Some investigations  indicate an increased risk of brain cancer with very intensive cell phone use for 10 or more years, while others show no such correlation. These are epidemiological studies, and epidemiology is not an exact science.

Nowadays, people not only use cell phones but are also exposed to various „chemicals”, whose health effects can be modified by simultaneous exposure to electromagnetic fields. Research on this topic is simply lacking. In summary, some epidemiological studies indicate that radiation may increase the risk of brain cancer.

On the other hand, almost everyone has been using cell phones for over 20 years, but despite a slow increase in incidence, brain cancer has not become an epidemic.

This fact is cited as indication that the observed increase in brain cancer cases may be due to medical science’s increasingly improved diagnostic methods, detecting very early stages of brain cancer. But there may also be another explanation. I recognize that different people have different sensitivity levels. That is, more sensitive individuals may experience cellular changes caused by electromagnetic radiation and develop cancer. However, most of us are not sensitive to such low levels of radiation and therefore will not develop a brain tumor from using a cell phone.

Only some of us react negatively to this radiation. Only some of us are more sensitive to the currently permitted level of radiation. Therefore, saying that this radiation is harmless, that it has virtually no impact on our health, is a gross exaggeration, as many aspects have not yet been sufficiently researched.

What aspects of radiation have not yet been studied?

There is very little research on the biochemical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human physiology. To investigate this, we would need to irradiate a person within permitted safety standards, collect blood, urine, saliva, or skin samples, and observe the biochemical changes that occurred as a result of the exposure. For reasons unknown, such studies are practically nonexistent. To date, thousands of studies have been conducted on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on cells and animals, but only a few (less than 10) have examined the effects of radiation on biochemical processes in humans. We practically do not know how this radiation affects human physiology and biochemical processes. In fact, we do not know at all. Conducting such studies was the goal of my research group, but unfortunately, we were unable to achieve it due to research funding cuts.

The problem is that, on the one hand, we want to know whether electromagnetic radiation is harmful to humans or not. On the other hand, we do not conduct experiments where a person is irradiated and then their biochemistry and physiology are studied.

Why is it that such research isn’t being conducted? Are there ethical issues involved? Are there vested interests at play? 

No, these aren’t ethical issues. Ethically, there’s no problem if research uses radiation at levels below the permitted limits, or even at the maximum permitted levels. In our study, we excised a piece of skin from the forearm, approximately half a centimeter in diameter, and then the surgeon sutured the wound shut on the volunteers, which caused them some discomfort, and we had no problem obtaining approval from the ethics committee.

The problem with conducting research is often that it requires advanced equipment, a well-equipped laboratory, and a good team of scientists who know what they’re doing. Unfortunately, many scientists who work in proteomics or gene research are not at all interested in conducting experiments in which electromagnetic radiation could be a factor affecting cells or people.

Scientists don’t want to be associated with electromagnetic field research for two reasons. First, they need a thorough understanding of the physics of radiation, which they often don’t. Second, they fear the pervasive propaganda and devaluation of research into the health effects of electromagnetic fields, labeling such research as a kind of „voodoo science” or black magic. According to the official narrative, there can be no negative effects, because everyone uses cell phones and… is still alive.

There is a fear that engaging in this topic could only ruin one’s career.

Scientists exercise self-censorship here; they don’t want to pursue a topic that is risky, won’t bring them much prestige, and can only cause problems.

There’s also self-censorship of a different kind. Scientists who study electromagnetic fields are reluctant to investigate their health effects using studies that analyze thousands of proteins or genes, because industry representatives don’t like it. The industry’s argument is this: if we’re scrutinizing thousands of proteins, there’s a high probability that one of them will react to radiation. Newspapers will publish this, although in reality, it won’t be entirely clear yet whether a change in the amount or activity of a given protein has any health effects. Journalists will sensationalize it, and the industry will struggle.

Therefore, there’s opposition to conduct studies that examine thousands of genes or proteins, because „there’s always something to be found”.

So, there’s pressure from industry on the one hand, and self-censorship by scientists on the other, which hinders this type of research. Scientists wonder whether their research will continue to be funded if they start studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health, given that industry representatives downplay the importance of this type of research. Paradoxically, proteomics is one of the fundamental research methods of the entire pharmaceutical industry. If we want new medicines and new treatments, proteomics is essential. But don’t bring proteomics near cell phones! When we want to study the effects of cell phones on health, proteomics suddenly becomes a „bad research method”.

Some experts and citizens argue that the „we need more research” trend has largely contributed to the current situation—that is, it’s gone so far that there’s no longer any power to not only stop it, but even investigate it. From their perspective, „we need more research” only makes sense if a moratorium (ban) on the development of a given technology is enforced until this research is completed. Otherwise, the technology will spread rapidly (thanks to astronomical profits from the stupidity of society, which „believes” the dealers that it „doesn’t  bring any harm”), making it impossible to research anything anymore, because there are no longer any control conditions or a control population. And the profits and widespread adoption will ensure that none of those in power will have any interest in stopping this „development”.

So scientists demanding funding because „we need more research” are acting like victims, asking for a tribute from those who have an interest in their research either not happening, or not showing anything, or at least appearing so late that it can be swept under the rug and discredited with the claim that we’ve been using it for years and somehow survive, and you’re suggesting a „return to the Middle Ages.”

And we’re not just talking about telecommunications corporations, but about the individual responsibility of each person for their use, for paying for it with their work. When will they learn that by enabling Wi-Fi at home, using a smartphone, tablet, TV with Wi-Fi, and „providing” all of this to their own families and children, will it be psychologically „in their power” to say: I was wrong, and now I’m experiencing the consequences? And learn from it and draw conclusions?

Or will they rather shout, „It can’t be that bad” and „We need more research”—closing the opportunity for thought, understanding, and learning. Perhaps we need more Homo-Sapiens, not Consumers screaming, „We need more research”. What is your stand on this?

There’s only one answer: we need more research.

The lack of biochemical studies on humans is a barrier to understand whether the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, alone or in combination with other environmental factors, cause significant health effects. Answers based on current research are rather speculative. We need biochemical studies on humans. 

On January 1, 2020, the Polish government increased the limits for public exposure to electromagnetic radiation hundred-fold to enable the introduction of the 5G network in Poland. The permissible level of exposure to EMF (electromagnetic field strength) was 0.1 W/m² (watts per square meter) for frequencies used in cellular networks. After the change, the limit was increased to 10 W/m². This limit also applies in other EU countries (previously, Polish standards were hundred times lower). This was done in accordance with the European Commission’s recommendations, which in turn are based on WHO standards, which in turn are based on ICNIRP recommendations. When introducing the changes, the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Poland argued that there was no evidence of their harmful effects on health. How do you assess this change four years later?

The standards in force in Poland before 2020 dated back to the Soviet era and were different from those in Western Europe. Therefore, the decision was made to standardize them, as without changing the standards, the introduction of 5G technology would not be possible.

A similar situation occurred in India, where radiation standards for base stations were initially lowered tenfold because people complained about the base stations. However, it turned out that with such a reduction, 5G would not be possible, and the standards were raised.

No one knows whether the change in standards in Poland has any impact on the health of Poles.

There are currently no studies that clearly demonstrate that anyone has become or will become ill due to the increased exposure standards. It’s possible that more sensitive individuals may experience some kind of effect from the increased exposure standards. Whether these effects will be physiological or psychological is another matter. Both are possible, as some people may simply be worried about their health due to the increased exposure standards, and such concern may also negatively impact their well-being — this is a health effect according to the WHO definition of health. However, some individuals, more biochemically sensitive to this radiation, will experience its impact on their physical well-being. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to demonstrate that any specific ailments are caused by this increase in radiation standards.

It’s also possible that we’ll never know whether electromagnetic fields have affected our health.

We live in an environment full of various other factors, such as environmental chemicals, food, and beverages, and we breathe polluted air. We are exposed to so many different aspects that this single additional impact from electromagnetic fields may never be fully identified.

Despite this, it’s clear that the more of this radiation there is in the environment, the greater the potential for it to affect us.

Furthermore, the effects of radiation on certain cells or physiological properties of humans are often studied, but so-called co-effects — the interactions of radiation with other environmental factors — are not studied. For example, we don’t know whether and how our skin’s response to ultraviolet radiation will change if it is simultaneously exposed to 5G radiation, which is absorbed through the skin. Will this have any additional impact? It’s unknown, because such things have never been studied in humans. However, this possibility has been shown to exist in animals. This was demonstrated in an experiment on rats and mice, in which the rodents were exposed to cell phone radiation and ultraviolet radiation.

In 2011, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decided to classify electromagnetic radiation as a possible carcinogen (IARC Category 2B), there were six similar studies on co-effects. One of these studies was later repeated and found that the combined effect of cell phone radiation and the co-effecting factor was greater than the effect of the radiation alone. This suggests that in certain situations, cell phone radiation can amplify the effects of other factors, or vice versa. As we increase the permitted exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation, these co-effects could theoretically increase as well.

But this is only speculation. There is no proof for this. It’s, in a sense, a „guess”. A similar „guess” are claims that everything is definitely safe and that cell phone radiation doesn’t negatively impact the health of adults or children. Such definitive claims are not sufficiently based on research. A great deal of research into the possible effects is still needed for us to make any definitive claims.

The European Union is conducting tests of Wi-Fi base stations, which are now present practically everywhere: in homes, shopping malls, and so on. These tests aim to determine whether the enormous amount of radiation emitted by the devices reaching us exceeds current standards. They verify that everything is being performed in accordance with accepted limits. These norms and standards are assumed to be safe.

Wi-Fi base station manufacturers are required to comply with applicable radiation standards for their products, but many such products can be installed in any building; theoretically, each resident can install their own. A priori, this is considered not to pose a health risk. However, this can only be assumed if we consider that current standards are such that they do not actually pose a health risk. Not everyone agrees. According to the WHO and ICNIRP, there is no cause for concern.

Only an influential politician or a court’s verdict could significantly challenge the opinions of WHO and ICNIRP.

So let’s talk about ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. It is based on the recommendations of ICNIRP scientists that standards are established, which are then applied by the WHO, the European Union, and other states.We also have other scientists who criticize the standards established by ICNIRP, for example, a group called ICBE-EMF – International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. This commission criticizes the current standards as too high. Many researchers characterize ICNIRP as a kind of mutual admiration society, whose members quote each other, sharing virtually the same opinions on electromagnetic radiation. There is no real scientific discussion there. How would you explain the fact that ICNIRP has such a powerful position and is able to impose standards that everyone then applies? Is it a hidden agenda?Is the criticism of ICNIRP justified? 

Criticism is, of course, justified to some extent; I myself have been criticizing ICNIRP for over twenty years. However, we must realize that, unfortunately, both commissions are, in reality, mutual admiration groups. ICNIRP is much older, having existed since the 1990s, and enjoys overwhelming support from industry and the WHO.

ICNIRP periodically invites new members as existing ones retire. Various organizations, such as universities and scientific institutions, can submit nominations to ICNIRP. ICNIRP members can also propose their own candidates, but the selection of new members is not transparent. It is an internal decision of the commission and is not made public.

It is never entirely clear why a particular scientist was selected. 

The situation is similar with the ICBE-EMF – International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, an organization that is critical of the current radiation standards. Critical scientists have organized themselves into a „commission” because being an official body adds prestige to their opinions. However, it is unclear on what basis and using what exact criteria this body was formed.

The problem with ICNIRP is that all its members share the same opinion, namely that electromagnetic radiation has no significant impact on health. However, at ICBE-EMF, everyone believes that radiation is certainly harmful, and, moreover, that this fact has already been proven.

There is no real scientific debate within either of these bodies.

For a so-called good debate to take place, the bodies debating this issue must include people with differing views. The only body where genuine discussion was possible was the commission established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 (when electromagnetic radiation was classified as a potential carcinogen, category 2B on the IARC scale – the author’s note). There were people there who completely disagreed. I myself participated in these deliberations. There, a real debate was necessary.

Before the meeting began, it was thought that the IARC debate would not lead to the classification of radiation as a carcinogen. To everyone’s surprise and a shock for the industry, the IARC — the International Agency for Research on Cancer — decided to classify electromagnetic radiation as a potential carcinogen (IARC Category 2B). This demonstrates that when scientists with differing opinions gather, the debate can lead to surprises and a new consensus, not just the entrenchment of preconceived opinions.

The 2011 decision was such a devastating blow to the industry that any new analysis of research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on cancer is currently being postponed.

Who funds ICNIRP?

ICNIRP receives money from various governments. Large grants come from the governments of Germany and Australia, for example. Technically, they are not funded by industry, although in the 1990s, the bulk of funding came from telecommunications companies.

In May of this year, the scientific journal Environmental International published an article on the link between electromagnetic radiation and possible cancer in animals and humans („Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review”). This is a comprehensive review of existing research on this topic. Interestingly, it was partially funded by the WHO. The authors conclude that there is now some evidence linking cell phone radiation to two types of cancer in animals, and that this may also translate into risk in humans.

Do you believe this publication has the potential to change the position of leading organizations and decision-makers on protecting the public from electromagnetic radiation? Is this some kind of „light at the end of the tunnel” that could reignite a genuine scientific debate?  

In my opinion, the systematic review you mentioned is an important publication. In 2011, when we were debating the carcinogenicity classification of cell phone radiation, evidence from epidemiological studies was paramount. However, toxicological studies in animals provided evidence supporting the classification of cell phone radiation as a potential carcinogen (2B).

The current review, which also considered animal toxicological studies published after 2011, once again supports the view that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic in animals and may be carcinogenic to humans.

However, there is no „light at the end of the tunnel”. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) has published a highly critical opinion on the review you cited. It argues that it is flawed and that the evidence it cites does not support any claims of carcinogenicity in humans. I suspect that other organizations that typically align with ICNIRP, such as ARPANSA in Australia, will publish similar critical opinions. Therefore, I contend that this publication, unfortunately, offers no „light at the end of the tunnel”. 

Let’s talk about electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). You mentioned that people are differently sensitive to environmental factors; some may develop this condition, others may not. In our environment, we are increasingly exposed to electromagnetic radiation, which may cause those affected by EHS to feel increasingly worse. How can people with EHS improve their situation in our society? What does the future hold for them? 

The answer to this question is unfortunately very short: there’s nothing such people can do. Depending on the scientific research sources considered, the number of people with hypersensitivity in society may be between one and ten percent. We don’t know why some people get sick and others don’t. To determine why someone gets sick, we need tests, whether genetic, protein, or physiological. With these tests, we could determine which characteristics of a given person cause them to suffer from hypersensitivity to radiation.

Currently, hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is a diagnosis that most patients self-diagnose.

Objective diagnosis of EHS is currently impossible. We don’t have any tests for this.

Most scientific research is conducted by asking participants how they feel after exposure to radiation. However, how they feel can be disrupted by even the simple stress of visiting a laboratory. In such cases, it’s unclear whether symptoms such as facial redness and itching are actually related to radiation or to stress caused by fear of radiation exposure.

Another problem is that the human body often reacts to certain stimuli with a delay. It’s also unknown how long a test should be repeated before it can be performed.

In summary, designing and conducting such tests is currently an extremely complex matter.

Therefore, the results of research on hypersensitivity are insufficient.

As I stated in my last publication in the July 2025 issue of the journal mHealth, there is currently no method to objectively diagnose sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. 

You said that hypersensitivity could affect anywhere from one to ten percent of the population. That’s a significant number. 

Yes. That’s precisely why the existence of EHS is currently denied and reduced to some kind of „superstition”. It’s said to be merely a figment of people’s imagination. If objective research were to truly prove that such hypersensitivity exists, it would be a significant issue, significantly impacting the health and productivity of society. If we could demonstrate that current devices emitting electromagnetic radiation cause some of us to experience hypersensitivity symptoms, society would be faced with a decision about what action should be taken. Should these individuals be treated as collateral damage and sacrificed for the common good, or should standards be adjusted so that they can function normally?

The industry is terrified of lowering radiation standards, as it would cause technical problems. 

Proving the existence of EHS would be a huge challenge not only for industry but also for all public health organizations, which would have to take action to help hypersensitive people. Demonstrating that electromagnetic radiation can indeed cause EHS would open the proverbial Pandora’s box. That’s why little research is being done on this topic. 

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, demand that politicians and businesses adhere to the precautionary principle? Given the current state of wireless technology, where tens of millions of wireless devices are manufactured and activated every day.

Such demands have been made for 30 years, and… wireless communications are only getting better. This is, of course, sarcasm, illustrating the impact such demands have when they aren’t backed by solid science. The demands are ignored. 

Individuals who are protesting against the construction of telecommunications masts near schools, on rooftops of houses, and hospitals are they right? Would you agree with the proposal to ban masts and base stations in such locations? Would it be wise to ban smartphones in schools, or eliminate wireless internet in schools altogether? 

I would agree with some of these proposals.

When it comes to children and schools, wireless internet is certainly not necessary. Computers with wired internet can be placed in every classroom.

Schools don’t need Wi-Fi, especially since it’s not really known how it affects children’s health.

I’m not saying this because I know for sure it has a negative impact, but precisely because it’s unknown. And if the presence of Wi-Fi also has a psychological impact on parents, who become concerned about radiation, why not simply opt for wired internet in schools?

The second issue is the use of cell phones themselves. There’s a lot of talk these days about how they disrupt children’s psychological development, negatively impact social relationships, and interfere with learning. More and more countries are simply banning their use in schools. In Finland, schools that banned cell phones during the school day have seen improvements in academic performance and relationships between children, as they have to play together during breaks instead of staring at smartphone screens.

When it comes to installing telecommunications towers on school roofs, the protests against them are primarily driven by the psychological effect.

A cell tower emits a thousand times less radiation than a cell phone held against the head.

When using a phone, we receive dramatically more radiation from the phone than from the base station on the school roof. If we don’t use our phone during the school day and are still near the base station, it’s practically equivalent to no radiation exposure. This is truly a minimal amount of radiation.

However, if the mast is further away, even very far away, our phone will automatically increase its radiation output to connect to it. The phone must transmit more energy if the mast is far away. If the mast is on my roof, meaning very close, my phone transmits significantly less energy. The phone’s automatic control means that the farther away the base station is, the more energy the phone must transmit. Therefore, if the base station is on a school roof, and cell phones are used at the school, it’s even better that the base station is close, because then users will be exposed to less radiation from their own phones while using them. It could be argued that concerns about placing masts near schools or homes stem from a misunderstanding. 

How can we protect ourselves at least a little from the possible negative impact of mobile phones on our health? 

The choice of phone and how we use it matters. If we keep a regular, old-fashioned phone in our pocket that isn’t connected to the internet, it emits very little radiation to contact the base station. This amount of energy is close to zero. We are then not exposed to radiation that could potentially harm us. However, if we keep a smartphone in our pocket that is constantly connected to the internet, the situation changes.

Then our phone constantly emits energy because it needs it not only to contact the base station but also to constantly update all the apps on the smartphone.

Therefore, the area next to our pockets, where we keep our phones, is constantly exposed to radiation. For this reason, it’s best to turn off Wi-Fi and data on your phone if you don’t need them.

Some speculate that the increase in colon cancer rates may be due to people keeping their phones in their back pockets. Others argue that men shouldn’t keep their smartphones in their front pockets because radiation can harm sperm. I conducted research on the effects of radiation on sperm at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and the results showed that radiation did indeed inhibit certain sperm functions in the laboratory. However, whether the same thing happens in the living human body when a phone is in your pocket is unknown. This is one of the issues that hasn’t been studied.

Work is currently underway on the future rollout of the 6G network. In Finland, this is being conducted by, among others, the University of Oulu. Will 6G involve further increases in exposure standards? Should people with hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation be concerned about 6G? 

6G will no longer be microwaves, but terahertz frequencies. This radiation allows transmission of vast amounts of information, but only over very short distances. All buildings, even leaves and raindrops, constitute an obstacle even now for 5G.

5G doesn’t pass through many materials, so a large number of base stations are needed for a phone to connect to them.

In the case of 6G, there will be even more technological challenges. Whether it will have any physiological impact is unknown, as there is no research on the subject.

And that’s precisely the problem: communications technology is developing rapidly, while biological research is expensive and very time-consuming.

They always lag behind technological developments. When 5G was introduced, only a few studies existed on its effects on living organisms. Only now, after the introduction of 5G, are post-factum studies being conducted.

6G will most likely be introduced for industrial use first. It’s possible that we will never know how 6G, 5G, or electromagnetic radiation in general affects our health. This is due to the multitude of factors simultaneously affecting us. Isolating the effects of electromagnetic fields from this vast array of factors may be virtually impossible. 

Is there a question about the health impact of electromagnetic fields that no one has asked you yet? What other issues, beyond those raised in our conversation today, are worth exploring? 

The most important issue is the need for human studies to determine what biochemical and physiological changes in the human body are caused by electromagnetic field radiation.

Another important issue is the need to form expert groups that would not be mutual admiration groups, but forums for genuine scientific discussion.

Is there a chance that in the future the discussion about the impact of electromagnetic fields on health will become more productive and more scientific than it is now? 

No, I don’t see it. ICNIRP is very powerful. WHO is currently conducting a new evaluation of what is known about the health effects of electromagnetic fields. This is being done in great secrecy, and the people who prepared the initial reviews of the research on this topic are mostly affiliated with ICNIRP. Those who offered their own opinions inconsistent with ICNIRP’s position were eliminated. Therefore, I think the new WHO evaluation will declare that there is nothing wrong with the health effects of electromagnetic fields, and there is no cause for concern. This will be the final nail in the coffin of research on this topic. Nothing more will be done. 

So the final conclusion of our conversation seems decidedly negative?

Yes, very pessimistic. Nothing will change. I devoted one of my recent articles to the need for scientific debate.

Do you intend to continue participating in various forums and calling for continued debate, despite such negative prospects for the future?

Yes, because we need a debate of the kind organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011.

I wish you continued success in your work. This is a very important endeavor. Thank you very much for the interview.

Justyna Pierzyńska