Invisible Waves, Visible Harms: A Comprehensive Review on the Adverse Biological Consequences of Mobile Communication Radiations
Main Article Content
Keywords
Radio-frequency energy (RFE), Electromagnetic radiation/waves (EMR/W), Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Non-ionising radiation, Cell phones/networks, DNA damage, ROS (reactive oxygen species).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to summarizes the peer-reviewed literature as investigated for the last decades on the effects of these radiations on various aspects of human health.
Conclusion: Mobile phones have revolutionized communication, making it instant and accessible worldwide. Today it is pervasive & has become an integral part of our livelihood. Owing to its increased importance, mobile telecommunication infrastructures are parallelly perpetuating at an alarming exponential rate. In has been evident from several studies that for the basic operation of cellular phone a widespread human exposure to radio-frequency energy (RFE) is required, & it works in association with mobile base stations & towers providing network coverages in most areas. This has raised deep concern about the potential effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from such cellular devices & network towers.
References
1. Abtin S, Seyedaghamiri F, Aalidaeijavadi Z, Farrokhi AM, Moshrefi F, Ziveh T, Zibaii MI, Aliakbarian H, Rezaei-Tavirani M, Haghparast A. 2024. A review on the consequences of molecular and genomic alterations following exposure to electromagnetic fields: Remodelling of neuronal network and cognitive changes. Brain Res Bull [Internet]. 217(September):111090. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2024.111090.
2. Access O. 2022. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.
3. Amanat S, Mazloomi SM, Asadimehr H, Sadeghi F, Shekouhi F, Mortazavi SMJ. 2020. Lactobacillus acidophilus and lactobacillus casei exposed to wi-fi radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation show enhanced growth and lactic acid production. J Biomed Phys Eng. 10(6):745–750. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1056.
4. Al-Serori H, Ferk F, Kundi M, Bileck A, Gerner C, Mišík M, Nersesyan A, Waldherr M, Murbach M, Lah TT, Herold-Mende C, Collins AR, Knasmüller S. 2018. Mobile phone specific electromagnetic fields induce transient DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair in serum-deprived human glioblastoma cells. PLoS One. Apr 12; 13(4):e0193677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193677
5. Baohong W, Jiliang H, Lifen J et al. 2005. Studying the synergistic damage effects induced by 1.8 GHz radiofrequency field radiation (RFR) with four chemical mutagens on human lymphocyte DNA using comet assay in vitro. Mutation Research. 578:149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.05.001.
6. Boileau N, Margueritte F, Gauthier T, Boukeffa N, Preux PM, Labrunie A, Aubard Y. 2020. Mobile phone use during pregnancy: Which association with fetal growth? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 49(8). doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101852.
7. Chatha WA, Bayomy N, Hegazy AM, Elshafhey SH, Badawi MS, Elgendy HA, Mosaed MM, Moustafa M, Niazi A, Alamin HMS, Alyan A. 2025. Impact of mobile phone use during pregnancy on fetal development and birth defects: A review. J Clin Anal Med. Apr:1–5. doi: 10.4328/ACAM.22598.
8. Choi J, Min K, Jeon S, Kim N, Pack JK, Song K. 2020. Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Sci Rep. Jun; 10(1):9238. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65732-4.
9. Coddington O, Lean JL, Pilewskie P, Snow M, Lindholm D. 2016. A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Aug: 97 (7):1265–1282. doi:10.1175/bams-d-14-00265.1.
10. Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, et al. 2023. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals. Environ Int. Oct:180:108178. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108178.
11. Dasdag S, Ketani MA, Akdag Z, Ersay AR, Sari I, Demirtas ÖC, Celik MS. 1999. Whole-body microwave exposure emitted by cellular phones and testicular function of rats. Urol Res. 27(3):219–223. doi: 10.1007/s002400050113.
12. Dhami KK. 2020. The electromagnetic radiations and its impacts on bird diversity in India. Int J Avian Wildl Biol. 5(1):5–7. doi: 10.15406/ijawb.2020.05.00166.
13. Durdik M, Kosik P, Markova E, Somsedikova A, Gajdosechova B, Nikitina E, Horvathova E, Kozics K, Davis D, Belyaev I. 2019. Microwaves from mobile phone induce reactive oxygen species but not DNA damage, preleukemic fusion genes and apoptosis in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Sci Rep. 9(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52389-x.
14. Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Harbo Poulsen A, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, et al. 2024. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environ Int [Internet]. 185(March):108552. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552.
15. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-Jessen M, Schüz J. 2011. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: Update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. 343(7830):1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.
16. Gautam R, Singh KV, Nirala J, Murmu NN, Meena R, Rajamani P. 2019. Oxidative stress-mediated alterations on sperm parameters in male Wistar rats exposed to 3G mobile phone radiation. Andrologia. 51(3):1–9. doi: 10.1111/and.13201.
17. Grigoriev YG. 2017. Frequencies used in Telecommunications an Integrated Radiobiological Assessment. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA). https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/frequencies_used_in_telecommunications__an_integrated_radiobiological_assessment__dec_22.pdf
18. Gorpinchenko I, Nikitin O, Banyra O, Shulyak A. 2014. The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality. Cent Eur J Urol. 67(1):65–71. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2014.01.art14.
19. Gulati S, Kosik P, Durdik M, Skorvaga M, Jakl L, Markova E, Belyaev I. 2020. Effects of different mobile phone UMTS signals on DNA, apoptosis and oxidative stress in human lymphocytes. Environ. Pollut. 267:115632. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115632.
20. Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2019. Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. Int J Oncol. 54(1):111–127. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4606.
21. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. Int J Oncol. | 2009 Jul;35(1):5-17 |doi: 10.3892/ijo_00000307.
22. ICNIRP Guidelines. 2020. For limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 KHZ TO 300 GHZ). Heal Phys 118(5): 483–524. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210
23. INTERPHONE Study Group. 2010. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. Jun; 39(3):675-94. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq079.
24. Khalaf AM, Alubied AA, Khalaf AM, Rifaey AA. 2023. The Impact of Social Media on the Mental Health of Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review. Cureus. Aug 5;15(8):e42990. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42990
25. Khalil AM, Alemam IF, Al-Qaoud KM. 2020. Association between Mobile Phone Using and DNA Damage of Epithelial Cells of the Oral Mucosa. J. Biotechnol. Biomed. 3 (2020): 50-66. doi: 10.26502/jbb.2642-91280027.
26. Kühn S, Cabot E, Christ A, Capstick M, Kuster N. 2009. Assessment of the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields induced in the human body from mobile phones used with hands-free kits. Phys Med Biol. Sep21; 21;54(18):5493-508. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/18/010.
27. Kumar N and Kumar G. 2009. Biological effects of cell tower radiation on human body. ISMOT, Delhi, India, Dec; pp. 1365-1368. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24586479/Cell-TowerRadiation-Effects.
28. Kumar SS. 2018. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in Honey Bees Caused by EMF Radiation. Bioinformation. 14(9):521–524. doi: 10.6026/97320630014521.
29. Leach V, Weller S, and McCredden J. 2025. Bridging the gaps in radiofrequency exposure assessment: a pilot study using continuous, full spectrum monitoring equipment. Radiation Protection in Australasia. Vol, 42, No. 1. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29006.88643.
30. Lightfoot TJ, Skibola CF, Willett E V., Skibola DR, Allan JM, Coppede F, Adamson PJ, Morgan GJ, Roman E, Smith MT. 2005. Risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with polymorphisms in folate-metabolizing genes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 14(12):2999–3003. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0515.
31. Luo X, Huang X, Luo Z, Wang Z, He G, Tan Y, Zhang B, Zhou H, Li P, Shen T, et al. 2021. Electromagnetic field exposure-induced depression features could be alleviated by heat acclimation based on remodeling the gut microbiota. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf [Internet]. 228:112980. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112980.
32. Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM, Héroux P, Mallery-Blythe E, McCredden JE, Herbert M, Hardell L, Philips A, Belpoggi F, Frank JW, et al. 2025. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environ Health. Oct: 24(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4.
33. Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, Kopp-Schneider A, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Rivero TM, Straif K. 2025. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int. May:199:109482. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482.
34. Mišík M, Kundi M, Worel N, Ferk F, Hutter HP, Grusch M, Nersesyan A, Herrera Morales D, Knasmueller S. 2023. Impact of mobile phone-specific electromagnetic fields on DNA damage caused by occupationally relevant exposures: results of ex vivo experiment with peripheral blood mononuclear cells from different demographic groups. Mutagenesis. 38(4):227–237. doi: 10.1093/mutage/gead022.
35. Mortazavi SMJ, Taheri M, Paknahad M, Khandadash S. 2022. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Emitted from Mobile Phones and Wi-Fi Router on the Growth Rate and Susceptibility of Enterococcus faecalis to Antibiotics. J Biomed Phys Eng. 12(4):387–394. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1268.
36. Mousavy SJ, Riazi GH, Kamarei M, Aliakbarian H, Sattarahmady N, Sharifizadeh A, Safarian S, Ahmad F, Moosavi-Movahedi AA. 2009. Effects of mobile phone radiofrequency on the structure and function of the normal human hemoglobin. Int J Biol Macromol. 44(3):278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2009.01.001.
37. Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, Shore RE, Stellman SD, McRee D, Neugut AI, Wynder EL. 2000. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA. Dec 20; 284(23):3001-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.23.3001.
38. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. 2015. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports. Oct 12:5:14914. doi: 10.1038/srep14914.
39. Pearce JM. 2020. Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Env Res. Feb; 181: 181108845. Doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845.
40. Royant-Parola S, Londe V, Tréhout S, Hartley S. 2018. Nouveaux médias sociaux, nouveaux comportements de sommeil chez les adolescents [The use of social media modifies teenagers’ sleep-related behavior]. Encephale. Sep; 44(4):321-328. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2017.03.009.
41. Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt JL, Persson BRR. 1994. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50 and 200 Hz. Microsc. Res. Tech. Apr 15;27(6):535-42. doi: 10.1002/jemt.1070270608.
42. Sannino A, Sarti M, Reddy SB et al. 2009. Induction of adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiation Research. 171:735–742. doi: 10.1667/RR1687.1.
43. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG, Cardis E, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Hepworth SJ, Johansen C, et al. 2005. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer. 93(7):842–848. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764.
44. Schwaiger E, Tahir R. 2022. The Impact of Nomophobia and Smartphone Presence on Fluid Intelligence and Attention. Cyberpsychology. 16(1), Article 5. doi: 10.5817/CP2022-1-5.
45. Sieroń-Stołtny K, Teister Ł, Cies̈lar G, Sieroń D, Siwinski Z, Kucharzewski M, Sieroń A. 2015. The influence of electromagnetic radiation generated by a mobile phone on the skeletal system of rats. Biomed Res Int. Feb:896019. doi: 10.1155/2015/896019.
46. Skowronek J, Seifert A, Lindberg S. 2023. The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance. Sci Rep. Jun 8; 13(1):9363. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36256-4.
47. Tanil CT, Yong MH. 2020. Mobile phones: The effect of its presence on learning and memory. PLoS One. Aug 13; 15(8):e0219233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219233.
48. Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. 2014. The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology. 45(6), 479–488. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000216.
49. Veerachari SB, Vasan SS. 2012. Mobile phone electromagnetic waves and its effect on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro study. Int J Infertil Fetal Med. 3(1):15–21. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1034.
50. Vijayalaxmi Scarfi MR. 2014. International and national expert group evaluations: biological/health effects of radiofrequency fields. International journal of environmental research and public health 11:9376–9408 doi: 10.3390/ijerph110909376.
51. Villeneuve PJ, Momoli F, Parent MÉ, Siemiatycki J, Turner MC, Krewski D. 2021. Cell phone use and the risk of glioma: are case-control study findings consistent with Canadian time trends in cancer incidence? Environ Res. 200(April). doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111283.
52. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, Vaska P, Fowler JS, Telang F, Alexoff D, Logan J, Wong C. 2011. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. Feb 23; 305(8):808-13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.186.
53. Wall S, Wang ZM, Kendig T, Dobraca D, Lipsett M. 2019. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 171:581–592. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.015.
54. Wang X, Zhou G, Lin J, Qin T, Du J, Guo L, Lai P, jing Y, Zhang Z, Zhou Y, Ding G. 2024. Effects of radiofrequency field from 5G communication on fecal microbiome and metabolome profiles in mice. Sci Rep. Feb 12; 14(1):3571. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53842-2.
55. Wdowiak A, Mazurek PA, Wdowiak Anita, Bojar I. 2018. Low frequency electromagnetic waves increase human sperm motility – A pilot study revealing the potent effect of 43 kHz radiation. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 31(6):723–739. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01262.
56. Weller SG, McCredden JE, Leach V, Chu C, Lam AK. 2025. A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front Public Heal. Jul 30:13:1613353. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353.
57. Zahid N. 2014. Health risk associated with mobile phone use. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). Oct;8(4):V–VI. doi: 10.12816/0023989.
2. Access O. 2022. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.
3. Amanat S, Mazloomi SM, Asadimehr H, Sadeghi F, Shekouhi F, Mortazavi SMJ. 2020. Lactobacillus acidophilus and lactobacillus casei exposed to wi-fi radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation show enhanced growth and lactic acid production. J Biomed Phys Eng. 10(6):745–750. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1056.
4. Al-Serori H, Ferk F, Kundi M, Bileck A, Gerner C, Mišík M, Nersesyan A, Waldherr M, Murbach M, Lah TT, Herold-Mende C, Collins AR, Knasmüller S. 2018. Mobile phone specific electromagnetic fields induce transient DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair in serum-deprived human glioblastoma cells. PLoS One. Apr 12; 13(4):e0193677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193677
5. Baohong W, Jiliang H, Lifen J et al. 2005. Studying the synergistic damage effects induced by 1.8 GHz radiofrequency field radiation (RFR) with four chemical mutagens on human lymphocyte DNA using comet assay in vitro. Mutation Research. 578:149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.05.001.
6. Boileau N, Margueritte F, Gauthier T, Boukeffa N, Preux PM, Labrunie A, Aubard Y. 2020. Mobile phone use during pregnancy: Which association with fetal growth? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 49(8). doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101852.
7. Chatha WA, Bayomy N, Hegazy AM, Elshafhey SH, Badawi MS, Elgendy HA, Mosaed MM, Moustafa M, Niazi A, Alamin HMS, Alyan A. 2025. Impact of mobile phone use during pregnancy on fetal development and birth defects: A review. J Clin Anal Med. Apr:1–5. doi: 10.4328/ACAM.22598.
8. Choi J, Min K, Jeon S, Kim N, Pack JK, Song K. 2020. Continuous Exposure to 1.7 GHz LTE Electromagnetic Fields Increases Intracellular Reactive Oxygen Species to Decrease Human Cell Proliferation and Induce Senescence. Sci Rep. Jun; 10(1):9238. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65732-4.
9. Coddington O, Lean JL, Pilewskie P, Snow M, Lindholm D. 2016. A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Aug: 97 (7):1265–1282. doi:10.1175/bams-d-14-00265.1.
10. Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, et al. 2023. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals. Environ Int. Oct:180:108178. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108178.
11. Dasdag S, Ketani MA, Akdag Z, Ersay AR, Sari I, Demirtas ÖC, Celik MS. 1999. Whole-body microwave exposure emitted by cellular phones and testicular function of rats. Urol Res. 27(3):219–223. doi: 10.1007/s002400050113.
12. Dhami KK. 2020. The electromagnetic radiations and its impacts on bird diversity in India. Int J Avian Wildl Biol. 5(1):5–7. doi: 10.15406/ijawb.2020.05.00166.
13. Durdik M, Kosik P, Markova E, Somsedikova A, Gajdosechova B, Nikitina E, Horvathova E, Kozics K, Davis D, Belyaev I. 2019. Microwaves from mobile phone induce reactive oxygen species but not DNA damage, preleukemic fusion genes and apoptosis in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Sci Rep. 9(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52389-x.
14. Feychting M, Schüz J, Toledano MB, Vermeulen R, Auvinen A, Harbo Poulsen A, Deltour I, Smith RB, Heller J, Kromhout H, et al. 2024. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environ Int [Internet]. 185(March):108552. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552.
15. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-Jessen M, Schüz J. 2011. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: Update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. 343(7830):1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.
16. Gautam R, Singh KV, Nirala J, Murmu NN, Meena R, Rajamani P. 2019. Oxidative stress-mediated alterations on sperm parameters in male Wistar rats exposed to 3G mobile phone radiation. Andrologia. 51(3):1–9. doi: 10.1111/and.13201.
17. Grigoriev YG. 2017. Frequencies used in Telecommunications an Integrated Radiobiological Assessment. Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association Inc. (ORSAA). https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/frequencies_used_in_telecommunications__an_integrated_radiobiological_assessment__dec_22.pdf
18. Gorpinchenko I, Nikitin O, Banyra O, Shulyak A. 2014. The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality. Cent Eur J Urol. 67(1):65–71. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2014.01.art14.
19. Gulati S, Kosik P, Durdik M, Skorvaga M, Jakl L, Markova E, Belyaev I. 2020. Effects of different mobile phone UMTS signals on DNA, apoptosis and oxidative stress in human lymphocytes. Environ. Pollut. 267:115632. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115632.
20. Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2019. Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. Int J Oncol. 54(1):111–127. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4606.
21. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. Int J Oncol. | 2009 Jul;35(1):5-17 |doi: 10.3892/ijo_00000307.
22. ICNIRP Guidelines. 2020. For limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 KHZ TO 300 GHZ). Heal Phys 118(5): 483–524. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210
23. INTERPHONE Study Group. 2010. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. Jun; 39(3):675-94. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq079.
24. Khalaf AM, Alubied AA, Khalaf AM, Rifaey AA. 2023. The Impact of Social Media on the Mental Health of Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review. Cureus. Aug 5;15(8):e42990. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42990
25. Khalil AM, Alemam IF, Al-Qaoud KM. 2020. Association between Mobile Phone Using and DNA Damage of Epithelial Cells of the Oral Mucosa. J. Biotechnol. Biomed. 3 (2020): 50-66. doi: 10.26502/jbb.2642-91280027.
26. Kühn S, Cabot E, Christ A, Capstick M, Kuster N. 2009. Assessment of the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields induced in the human body from mobile phones used with hands-free kits. Phys Med Biol. Sep21; 21;54(18):5493-508. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/18/010.
27. Kumar N and Kumar G. 2009. Biological effects of cell tower radiation on human body. ISMOT, Delhi, India, Dec; pp. 1365-1368. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24586479/Cell-TowerRadiation-Effects.
28. Kumar SS. 2018. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in Honey Bees Caused by EMF Radiation. Bioinformation. 14(9):521–524. doi: 10.6026/97320630014521.
29. Leach V, Weller S, and McCredden J. 2025. Bridging the gaps in radiofrequency exposure assessment: a pilot study using continuous, full spectrum monitoring equipment. Radiation Protection in Australasia. Vol, 42, No. 1. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29006.88643.
30. Lightfoot TJ, Skibola CF, Willett E V., Skibola DR, Allan JM, Coppede F, Adamson PJ, Morgan GJ, Roman E, Smith MT. 2005. Risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with polymorphisms in folate-metabolizing genes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 14(12):2999–3003. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0515.
31. Luo X, Huang X, Luo Z, Wang Z, He G, Tan Y, Zhang B, Zhou H, Li P, Shen T, et al. 2021. Electromagnetic field exposure-induced depression features could be alleviated by heat acclimation based on remodeling the gut microbiota. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf [Internet]. 228:112980. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112980.
32. Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM, Héroux P, Mallery-Blythe E, McCredden JE, Herbert M, Hardell L, Philips A, Belpoggi F, Frank JW, et al. 2025. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environ Health. Oct: 24(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4.
33. Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, Kopp-Schneider A, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Rivero TM, Straif K. 2025. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int. May:199:109482. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482.
34. Mišík M, Kundi M, Worel N, Ferk F, Hutter HP, Grusch M, Nersesyan A, Herrera Morales D, Knasmueller S. 2023. Impact of mobile phone-specific electromagnetic fields on DNA damage caused by occupationally relevant exposures: results of ex vivo experiment with peripheral blood mononuclear cells from different demographic groups. Mutagenesis. 38(4):227–237. doi: 10.1093/mutage/gead022.
35. Mortazavi SMJ, Taheri M, Paknahad M, Khandadash S. 2022. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Emitted from Mobile Phones and Wi-Fi Router on the Growth Rate and Susceptibility of Enterococcus faecalis to Antibiotics. J Biomed Phys Eng. 12(4):387–394. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1268.
36. Mousavy SJ, Riazi GH, Kamarei M, Aliakbarian H, Sattarahmady N, Sharifizadeh A, Safarian S, Ahmad F, Moosavi-Movahedi AA. 2009. Effects of mobile phone radiofrequency on the structure and function of the normal human hemoglobin. Int J Biol Macromol. 44(3):278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2009.01.001.
37. Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, Shore RE, Stellman SD, McRee D, Neugut AI, Wynder EL. 2000. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA. Dec 20; 284(23):3001-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.23.3001.
38. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. 2015. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports. Oct 12:5:14914. doi: 10.1038/srep14914.
39. Pearce JM. 2020. Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers. Env Res. Feb; 181: 181108845. Doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845.
40. Royant-Parola S, Londe V, Tréhout S, Hartley S. 2018. Nouveaux médias sociaux, nouveaux comportements de sommeil chez les adolescents [The use of social media modifies teenagers’ sleep-related behavior]. Encephale. Sep; 44(4):321-328. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2017.03.009.
41. Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt JL, Persson BRR. 1994. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50 and 200 Hz. Microsc. Res. Tech. Apr 15;27(6):535-42. doi: 10.1002/jemt.1070270608.
42. Sannino A, Sarti M, Reddy SB et al. 2009. Induction of adaptive response in human blood lymphocytes exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiation Research. 171:735–742. doi: 10.1667/RR1687.1.
43. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG, Cardis E, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Hepworth SJ, Johansen C, et al. 2005. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer. 93(7):842–848. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764.
44. Schwaiger E, Tahir R. 2022. The Impact of Nomophobia and Smartphone Presence on Fluid Intelligence and Attention. Cyberpsychology. 16(1), Article 5. doi: 10.5817/CP2022-1-5.
45. Sieroń-Stołtny K, Teister Ł, Cies̈lar G, Sieroń D, Siwinski Z, Kucharzewski M, Sieroń A. 2015. The influence of electromagnetic radiation generated by a mobile phone on the skeletal system of rats. Biomed Res Int. Feb:896019. doi: 10.1155/2015/896019.
46. Skowronek J, Seifert A, Lindberg S. 2023. The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance. Sci Rep. Jun 8; 13(1):9363. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36256-4.
47. Tanil CT, Yong MH. 2020. Mobile phones: The effect of its presence on learning and memory. PLoS One. Aug 13; 15(8):e0219233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219233.
48. Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. 2014. The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology. 45(6), 479–488. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000216.
49. Veerachari SB, Vasan SS. 2012. Mobile phone electromagnetic waves and its effect on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro study. Int J Infertil Fetal Med. 3(1):15–21. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1034.
50. Vijayalaxmi Scarfi MR. 2014. International and national expert group evaluations: biological/health effects of radiofrequency fields. International journal of environmental research and public health 11:9376–9408 doi: 10.3390/ijerph110909376.
51. Villeneuve PJ, Momoli F, Parent MÉ, Siemiatycki J, Turner MC, Krewski D. 2021. Cell phone use and the risk of glioma: are case-control study findings consistent with Canadian time trends in cancer incidence? Environ Res. 200(April). doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111283.
52. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, Vaska P, Fowler JS, Telang F, Alexoff D, Logan J, Wong C. 2011. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. Feb 23; 305(8):808-13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.186.
53. Wall S, Wang ZM, Kendig T, Dobraca D, Lipsett M. 2019. Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures. Environ Res. 171:581–592. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.015.
54. Wang X, Zhou G, Lin J, Qin T, Du J, Guo L, Lai P, jing Y, Zhang Z, Zhou Y, Ding G. 2024. Effects of radiofrequency field from 5G communication on fecal microbiome and metabolome profiles in mice. Sci Rep. Feb 12; 14(1):3571. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53842-2.
55. Wdowiak A, Mazurek PA, Wdowiak Anita, Bojar I. 2018. Low frequency electromagnetic waves increase human sperm motility – A pilot study revealing the potent effect of 43 kHz radiation. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 31(6):723–739. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01262.
56. Weller SG, McCredden JE, Leach V, Chu C, Lam AK. 2025. A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data. Front Public Heal. Jul 30:13:1613353. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353.
57. Zahid N. 2014. Health risk associated with mobile phone use. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). Oct;8(4):V–VI. doi: 10.12816/0023989.
Article Sidebar
Published
Sep 02, 2021
Article Details
How to Cite
Utpalendu Ghosh. (2021). Invisible Waves, Visible Harms: A Comprehensive Review on the Adverse Biological Consequences of Mobile Communication Radiations. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 28(2), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.53555/k62pmb30
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Author Biography
Utpalendu Ghosh
Department of Zoology, Trivenidevi Bhalotia College, Raniganj, West Bengal- 713347, India
How to Cite
Utpalendu Ghosh. (2021). Invisible Waves, Visible Harms: A Comprehensive Review on the Adverse Biological Consequences of Mobile Communication Radiations. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 28(2), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.53555/k62pmb30
