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

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

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

Dariusz Leszczyński: I became curious in this subject 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 study 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 inactive knew very small about the effects of electromagnetic fields on human health, and systematic investigation needed to begin from scratch. This meant starting with studies on the most applicable cells for this research—human cells. Then the results would be closest to reality and useful for human health.

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

What investigation did you and your investigation group conduct?

Cells can be scrutinized in many different ways, utilizing various searches, but it’s frequently hard to prove that the cellular consequence observed in a survey was actually caused by the origin of interest — electromagnetic fields — and not, for example, by a temperature increase caused by microwave radiation. Therefore, to avoid this problem, investigation requires high-quality equipment. In our biological research, we utilized 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 circumstantial 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 alleged 'stress response,’ the body’s consequence to signals that disrupt average physiological processes.

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

The human studies we have besides initiated are essential to find the precise processes occurring in human organs following vulnerability to electromagnetic fields at levels permitted by regulations.

Our pilot survey showed that certain proteins in humans respond to radiation by expanding or decreasing their levels. We irradiated tiny sections of human skin with cell telephone 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 erstwhile utilizing our phones can affect our body’s physiology. We inactive don’t know whether this is simply a negative or affirmative effect. The continuation of the human survey was interrupted due to the fact that the backing promised for further investigation remained only a promise.

What are you doing now?

I’m presently retired. However, I’m inactive the Chief Editor of the technological diary I founded in 2014 – „Radiation and Health”, part of Frontiers in Public Health, published in Switzerland. I proceed to investigation the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health. I compose technological articles and lecture at various conferences, peculiarly in Australia and fresh Zealand, as well as in the USA, Norway, Iceland, Germany, and another countries. I besides print my observations and opinions on a discipline blog, which I’ve maintained since 2009.

You’ve been researching the wellness 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 authoritative bodies, including the global Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). akin assurances besides come from the EU and its technological Committee on Emerging and recently Identified wellness Risks (SCENIHR). Many YouTube influencers and discipline communicators on social media convince us that there’s no request to fear either cell telephone radiation or the fresh 5G network.

On the another hand, the global Agency for investigation on Cancer treats cell telephone radiation as a possible carcinogen (category 2B). any experts unaffiliated with authoritative bodies believe this category should be raised to 2A (definite carcinogen). Is it actual that there is an global technological consensus regarding the impact of electromagnetic radiation on wellness that says that vulnerability to continuous radiation from various devices in the environment is safe for the human body?

To the best of my knowledge, no specified consensus exists. However, any organizations, specified as the influential ICNIRP, argue that specified a consensus exists and that electromagnetic radiation is not a problem. another organizations, specified as the recently formed commission called ICBE-EMF – global Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, believe that electromagnetic radiation affects our wellness 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 presently permitted are indeed low. But that doesn’t mean they don’t affect surviving organisms. If cells exhibit a biological consequence to radiation, a alleged stress response, wellness effects are possible. Another question is who might become sick from this exposure; can everyone’s wellness be affected by this radiation? There’s presently no answer to this question.

Everyone is different. any are delicate to environmental factors, specified as ultraviolet radiation, while others are not. any are allergic to pollen, while others are not. any smokers make lung cancer, while others don’t, even though cigaret smoke is simply a known carcinogen.

The same is actual about electromagnetic radiation. This is called individual sensitivity. delicate individuals will respond to it. Any component of our environment, or any chemical we usage as medicine, can trigger different reactions in different people.

Is this besides related to EHS, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity? any doctors question its existence.

It’s known that not all medicine will cure everyone, and not all origin will origin sensitization in everyone. We can say that people are differently delicate to ultraviolet radiation, gamma radiation, and ultrasonic radiation. So why shouldn’t we be differently delicate 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, investigation on the wellness effects of electromagnetic fields has focused primarily on whether they origin brain cancer. These studies are ongoing and, in my opinion, have not yet yielded definitive conclusions. any investigations indicate an increased hazard of brain cancer with very intensive cell telephone usage for 10 or more years, while others show no specified correlation. These are epidemiological studies, and epidemiology is not an exact science.

Nowadays, people not only usage cell phones but are besides exposed to various „chemicals”, whose wellness effects can be modified by simultaneous vulnerability to electromagnetic fields. investigation on this subject is simply lacking. In summary, any epidemiological studies indicate that radiation may increase the hazard of brain cancer.

On the another hand, almost everyone has been utilizing 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 besides be another explanation. I admit that different people have different sensitivity levels. That is, more delicate individuals may experience cellular changes caused by electromagnetic radiation and make cancer. However, most of us are not delicate to specified low levels of radiation and so will not make a brain tumor from utilizing a cell phone.

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

What aspects of radiation have not yet been studied?

There is very small investigation on the biochemical effects of electromagnetic radiation on human physiology. To analyse this, we would request to irradiate a individual within permitted safety standards, collect blood, urine, saliva, or skin samples, and observe the biochemical changes that occurred as a consequence of the exposure. For reasons unknown, specified 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 fewer (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 specified studies was the goal of my investigation group, but unfortunately, we were incapable to accomplish it due to investigation backing cuts.

The problem is that, on the 1 hand, we want to know whether electromagnetic radiation is harmful to humans or not. On the another hand, we do not conduct experiments where a individual is irradiated and then their biochemistry and physiology are studied.

Why is it that specified investigation 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 investigation uses radiation at levels below the permitted limits, or even at the maximum permitted levels. In our study, we excised a part of skin from the forearm, about half a centimeter in diameter, and then the surgeon sutured the wound shut on the volunteers, which caused them any discomfort, and we had no problem obtaining approval from the ethics committee.

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

Scientists don’t want to be associated with electromagnetic field investigation for 2 reasons. First, they request a thorough knowing of the physics of radiation, which they frequently don’t. Second, they fear the pervasive propaganda and devaluation of investigation into the wellness effects of electromagnetic fields, labeling specified investigation as a kind of „voodoo science” or black magic. According to the authoritative narrative, there can be no negative effects, due to the fact that everyone uses cell phones and… is inactive alive.

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

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

There’s besides self-censorship of a different kind. Scientists who survey electromagnetic fields are reluctant to analyse their wellness effects utilizing studies that analyse thousands of proteins or genes, due to the fact that manufacture representatives don’t like it. The industry’s argument is this: if we’re scrutinizing thousands of proteins, there’s a advanced probability that 1 of them will respond to radiation. Newspapers will print 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 wellness effects. Journalists will sensationalize it, and the manufacture will struggle.

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

So, there’s force from manufacture on the 1 hand, and self-censorship by scientists on the other, which hinders this kind of research. Scientists wonder whether their investigation will proceed to be funded if they start studying the effects of electromagnetic radiation on health, given that manufacture representatives downplay the importance of this kind of research. Paradoxically, proteomics is 1 of the fundamental investigation methods of the full pharmaceutical industry. If we want fresh medicines and fresh treatments, proteomics is essential. But don’t bring proteomics close cell phones! erstwhile we want to survey the effects of cell phones on health, proteomics abruptly becomes a „bad investigation method”.

Some experts and citizens argue that the „we request more research” trend has mostly contributed to the current situation—that is, it’s gone so far that there’s no longer any power to not only halt it, but even analyse it. From their perspective, „we request more research” only makes sense if a moratorium (ban) on the improvement of a given technology is enforced until this investigation 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 investigation anything anymore, due to the fact that there are no longer any control conditions or a control population. And the profits and widespread adoption will guarantee that no of those in power will have any interest in stopping this „development”.

So scientists demanding backing due to the fact that „we request more research” are acting like victims, asking for a tribute from those who have an interest in their investigation 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 utilizing it for years and someway survive, and you’re suggesting a „return to the mediate Ages.”

And we’re not just talking about telecommunications corporations, but about the individual work of each individual for their use, for paying for it with their work. erstwhile will they learn that by enabling Wi-Fi at home, utilizing 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 alternatively shout, „It can’t be that bad” and „We request more research”—closing the chance for thought, understanding, and learning. possibly we request more Homo-Sapiens, not Consumers screaming, „We request more research”. What is your stand on this?

There’s only 1 answer: we request more research.

The deficiency of biochemical studies on humans is simply a barrier to realize whether the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, alone or in combination with another environmental factors, origin crucial wellness effects. Answers based on current investigation are alternatively speculative. We request biochemical studies on humans.

On January 1, 2020, the Polish government increased the limits for public vulnerability to electromagnetic radiation hundred-fold to enable the introduction of the 5G network in Poland. The permissible level of vulnerability to EMF (electromagnetic field strength) was 0.1 W/m² (watts per square meter) for frequencies utilized in cellular networks. After the change, the limit was increased to 10 W/m². This limit besides applies in another EU countries (previously, Polish standards were 100 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. erstwhile introducing the changes, the Ministry of wellness of the Republic of Poland argued that there was no evidence of their harmful effects on health. How do you measure this change 4 years later?

The standards in force in Poland before 2020 dated back to the russian 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 akin situation occurred in India, where radiation standards for base stations were initially lowered tenfold due to the fact that people complained about the base stations. However, it turned out that with specified a reduction, 5G would not be possible, and the standards were raised.

No 1 knows whether the change in standards in Poland has any impact on the wellness of Poles.

There are presently no studies that clearly show that anyone has become or will become sick due to the increased vulnerability standards. It’s possible that more delicate individuals may experience any kind of effect from the increased vulnerability standards. Whether these effects will be physiological or intellectual is another matter. Both are possible, as any people may simply be worried about their wellness due to the increased vulnerability standards, and specified concern may besides negatively impact their well-being — this is simply a wellness effect according to the WHO definition of health. However, any individuals, more biochemically delicate to this radiation, will experience its impact on their physical well-being. Unfortunately, there is presently no way to show that any circumstantial ailments are caused by this increase in radiation standards.

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

We live in an environment full of various another factors, specified 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 full identified.

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

Furthermore, the effects of radiation on certain cells or physiological properties of humans are frequently studied, but alleged co-effects — the interactions of radiation with another environmental factors — are not studied. For example, we don’t know whether and how our skin’s consequence 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, due to the fact that specified things have never been studied in humans. However, this anticipation has been shown to be in animals. This was demonstrated in an experimentation on rats and mice, in which the rodents were exposed to cell telephone radiation and ultraviolet radiation.

In 2011, erstwhile the global Agency for investigation on Cancer (IARC) decided to classify electromagnetic radiation as a possible carcinogen (IARC Category 2B), there were six akin studies on co-effects. 1 of these studies was later repeated and found that the combined effect of cell telephone radiation and the co-effecting origin was greater than the effect of the radiation alone. This suggests that in certain situations, cell telephone radiation can amplify the effects of another factors, or vice versa. As we increase the permitted vulnerability 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 akin „guess” are claims that everything is definitely safe and that cell telephone radiation doesn’t negatively impact the wellness of adults or children. specified definitive claims are not sufficiently based on research. A large deal of investigation into the possible effects is inactive 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, buying malls, and so on. These tests aim to find whether the tremendous 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 specified products can be installed in any building; theoretically, each resident can install their own. A priori, this is considered not to pose a wellness risk. However, this can only be assumed if we consider that current standards are specified that they do not actually pose a wellness risk. Not everyone agrees. According to the WHO and ICNIRP, there is no origin for concern.

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

So let’s talk about ICNIRP, the global 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 another states.We besides have another scientists who criticize the standards established by ICNIRP, for example, a group called ICBE-EMF – global Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. This commission criticizes the current standards as besides high. Many researchers characterize ICNIRP as a kind of common admiration society, whose members quote each other, sharing virtually the same opinions on electromagnetic radiation. There is no real technological discussion there. How would you explain the fact that ICNIRP has specified 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 any extent; I myself have been criticizing ICNIRP for over 20 years. However, we must realize that, unfortunately, both commissions are, in reality, common admiration groups. ICNIRP is much older, having existed since the 1990s, and enjoys overwhelming support from manufacture and the WHO.

ICNIRP periodically invites fresh members as existing ones retire. Various organizations, specified as universities and technological institutions, can submit nominations to ICNIRP. ICNIRP members can besides propose their own candidates, but the selection of fresh members is not transparent. It is an interior decision of the commission and is not made public.

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

The situation is akin with the ICBE-EMF – global 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” due to the fact that being an authoritative body adds prestige to their opinions. However, it is unclear on what basis and utilizing 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 crucial impact on health. However, at ICBE-EMF, everyone believes that radiation is surely harmful, and, moreover, that this fact has already been proven.

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

For a alleged 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 global Agency for investigation on Cancer in 2011 (when electromagnetic radiation was classified as a possible 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 gathering 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 global Agency for investigation on Cancer — decided to classify electromagnetic radiation as a possible carcinogen (IARC Category 2B). This demonstrates that erstwhile scientists with differing opinions gather, the debate can lead to surprises and a fresh consensus, not just the entrenchment of preconceived opinions.

The 2011 decision was specified a devastating blow to the manufacture that any fresh analysis of investigation on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on cancer is presently 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 backing came from telecommunications companies.

In May of this year, the technological diary Environmental global published an article on the link between electromagnetic radiation and possible cancer in animals and humans („Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field vulnerability on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review”). This is simply a comprehensive review of existing investigation on this topic. Interestingly, it was partially funded by the WHO. The authors conclude that there is now any evidence linking cell telephone radiation to 2 types of cancer in animals, and that this may besides translate into hazard in humans.

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

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

The current review, which besides considered animal toxicological studies published after 2011, one more time supports the view that cell telephone radiation is carcinogenic in animals and may be carcinogenic to humans.

However, there is no „light at the end of the tunnel”. The German national 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 fishy that another organizations that typically align with ICNIRP, specified as ARPANSA in Australia, will print akin 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 delicate to environmental factors; any may make this condition, others may not. In our environment, we are increasingly exposed to electromagnetic radiation, which may origin 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 specified people can do. Depending on the technological investigation sources considered, the number of people with hypersensitivity in society may be between 1 and 10 percent. We don’t know why any people get sick and others don’t. To find why individual gets sick, we request tests, whether genetic, protein, or physiological. With these tests, we could find which characteristics of a given individual origin them to endure from hypersensitivity to radiation.

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

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

Most technological investigation is conducted by asking participants how they feel after vulnerability to radiation. However, how they feel can be disrupted by even the simple stress of visiting a laboratory. In specified cases, it’s unclear whether symptoms specified 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 frequently reacts to certain stimuli with a delay. It’s besides unknown how long a test should be repeated before it can be performed.

In summary, designing and conducting specified tests is presently an highly complex matter.

Therefore, the results of investigation on hypersensitivity are insufficient.

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

You said that hypersensitivity could affect anywhere from 1 to 10 percent of the population. That’s a crucial number.

Yes. That’s precisely why the existence of EHS is presently denied and reduced to any kind of „superstition”. It’s said to be simply a figment of people’s imagination. If nonsubjective investigation were to truly prove that specified hypersensitivity exists, it would be a crucial issue, importantly impacting the wellness and productivity of society. If we could show that current devices emitting electromagnetic radiation origin any 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 harm and sacrificed for the common good, or should standards be adjusted so that they can function normally?

The manufacture is terrified of lowering radiation standards, as it would origin method problems.

Proving the existence of EHS would be a immense challenge not only for manufacture but besides for all public wellness organizations, which would gotta take action to aid hypersensitive people. Demonstrating that electromagnetic radiation can indeed origin EHS would open the proverbial Pandora’s box. That’s why small investigation is being done on this topic.

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, request 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 all day.

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

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

I would agree with any of these proposals.

When it comes to children and schools, wireless net is surely not necessary. Computers with wired net can be placed in all classroom.

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

I’m not saying this due to the fact that I know for certain it has a negative impact, but precisely due to the fact that it’s unknown. And if the presence of Wi-Fi besides has a intellectual impact on parents, who become afraid about radiation, why not simply opt for wired net in schools?

The second issue is the usage of cell phones themselves. There’s quite a few talk these days about how they disrupt children’s intellectual development, negatively impact social relationships, and interfere with learning. More and more countries are simply banning their usage 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 gotta play together during breaks alternatively of staring at smartphone screens.

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

A cell tower emits a 1000 times little radiation than a cell telephone held against the head.

When utilizing a phone, we receive dramatically more radiation from the telephone than from the base station on the school roof. If we don’t usage our telephone during the school day and are inactive close 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 telephone will automatically increase its radiation output to connect to it. The telephone must transmit more energy if the mast is far away. If the mast is on my roof, meaning very close, my telephone transmits importantly little energy. The phone’s automatic control means that the farther distant the base station is, the more energy the telephone must transmit. Therefore, if the base station is on a school roof, and cell phones are utilized at the school, it’s even better that the base station is close, due to the fact that then users will be exposed to little radiation from their own phones while utilizing them. It could be argued that concerns about placing masts close schools or homes stem from a misunderstanding.

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

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

Then our telephone constantly emits energy due to the fact that it needs it not only to contact the base station but besides 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 telephone if you don’t request 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 due to the fact that radiation can harm sperm. I conducted investigation 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 surviving human body erstwhile a telephone is in your pocket is unknown. This is 1 of the issues that hasn’t been studied.

Work is presently underway on the future rollout of the 6G network. In Finland, this is being conducted by, among others, the University of Oulu. Will 6G affect further increases in vulnerability standards? Should people with hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation be afraid 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 telephone 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 investigation on the subject.

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

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

6G will most likely be introduced for industrial usage 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 wellness impact of electromagnetic fields that no 1 has asked you yet? What another issues, beyond those raised in our conversation today, are worth exploring?

The most crucial issue is the request for human studies to find what biochemical and physiological changes in the human body are caused by electromagnetic field radiation.

Another crucial issue is the request to form expert groups that would not be common admiration groups, but forums for genuine technological discussion.

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

No, I don’t see it. ICNIRP is very powerful. WHO is presently conducting a fresh evaluation of what is known about the wellness effects of electromagnetic fields. This is being done in large secrecy, and the people who prepared the first reviews of the investigation on this subject are mostly affiliated with ICNIRP. Those who offered their own opinions inconsistent with ICNIRP’s position were eliminated. Therefore, I think the fresh WHO evaluation will declare that there is nothing incorrect with the wellness effects of electromagnetic fields, and there is no origin for concern. This will be the final nail in the coffin of investigation 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 1 of my fresh articles to the request for technological debate.

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

Yes, due to the fact that we request a debate of the kind organized by the global Agency for investigation on Cancer in 2011.

I want you continued success in your work. This is simply a very crucial endeavor. Thank you very much for the interview.

Justyna Pierzyńska