ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2026
Exposure limits to radiofrequency EMF do not account for cancer risk or reproductive toxicity assessed from data in experimental animals.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent WHO-commissioned systematic reviews have concluded with “high certainty” that exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) increases cancer risk and reduces male fertility in experimental animals.
methodsWe performed benchmark dose (BMD) analyses on experimental cancer data to estimate exposure levels associated with cancer risk of 1 × 10–5 (1 in 100,000). Due to the lack of an established non-linear mode of action for RF-EMF-induced tumor responses, we utilized linear low-dose extrapolation from 1% BMD values. In addition, we applied traditional uncertainty factors to the reported linear potency value of 0.03 per W/kg for male reproductive toxicity to derive health-protective exposure limits.
resultsThe derived dose per hour (expressed as the specific absorption rate, SAR) at 1 × 10–5 cancer risk ranges from about 0.8 to 5 mW/kg. It should be noted that cancer risk increases with increasing time of exposure to RF-EMF. For protection of male fertility due to exposure to RF-EMF, the estimated SAR exposure limit was 3.3 to 10 mW/kg. These health protective whole-body exposure values are significantly lower than the current whole-body exposure limit value of 0.08 W/kg (80 mW/kg) established by ICNIRP and the FCC for the general public.
conclusionsFor the general public, current regulatory limits to RF-EMF are 15- to 900-fold higher than our estimates of exposure levels associated with cancer risk of 1 × 10–5 (depending on the duration of daily exposure), and 8- to 24-fold higher than levels that are protective of male reproductive health. Thus, we strongly recommend an independent re-evaluation of RF-EMF exposure limits, integrating scientific data accumulated over the past 30 years and applying rigorous health-protective methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.