New EMF Studies Suggest Synergistic Toxicity, Biological Stress; HHS Conducting New Health Study

A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine in February found that people who lived closer to cell towers and wireless base station network antennas had concerning and measurable differences in certain white blood cells, including basophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes. The study does not prove causation, but it did find that people who were within 60 meters of a cell tower had higher radio frequency radiation exposure than those who were 300 meters away. Blood levels were detected at levels 100 times below federal human exposure limits.

In addition, almost one out of four individuals who were in the highly exposed area had white blood cell counts above clinical reference limits. RF radiation from cell towers was associated with an increase in monocyte levels similar to the impacts of smoking. Over half of the individuals in the study who used their cell phones for 4-6 hours per day had lymphocyte counts above clinical reference limits, and most of them were under 30 years old.

“These results indicate human biological systems are under stress from both mobile phone use and local mobile phone tower exposures, leading to potential health effects,” the authors wrote. “Placement and signal strength from MPBS, and guidance regarding daily mobile phone use need to be informed by these results.”

The study results indicate RF-EMF could be a chronic stressor that mimics smoking and other toxic environmental exposures. This type of chronic exposure could contribute to chronic inflammation, immune fatigue, and heightened disease susceptibility over time, and it reflects a “biological stress.”

The study reaffirms concerns raised by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and by some of the Trump administration’s actions in recent months to study this issue further. “The FDA removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy,” said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon.

“EMFs are bad depending on the pulse rates and the wavelengths,” Kennedy said. “Some of them are very bad. In Europe, the regulations are an order of magnitude lower than what we allow here. There are literally over 10,000 studies that document a number of effects, including cancer tumor growth.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded that scientific evidence “does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.”

The researchers of the latest study note that elevated levels of certain white blood cells are indicative of biological stress, an area the WHO said is underresearched.

“You can’t see, hear, or smell electromagnetic fields, and most people don’t feel them — but they’re associated with systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases,” Kennedy said in 2022.

Another study was published recently that evaluated potential impacts when combining exposure to the industrial chemical Hexavalent Chromium, the same compound that was the subject of the Erin Brockovich movie, and EMF radiation. Researchers studied the two variables independently to assess chemically induced DNA damage.

The researchers did not find any detectable DNA damage from EMF radiation alone, but when combined with exposure to Hexavalent Chromium, they found a “significant synergistic increase” in DNA damage in MEF cells. The DNA breaks that were associated with this synergistic toxicity can lead to mutations, chromosomal instability, and cancer. A combination of environmental exposures can lead to greater biological impacts than when each exposure is studied individually.

Synergistic toxicity is the same concept that independent scientist and testing expert Scott Smith discusses when evaluating the environmental safety following chemical disasters in East Palestine, Conyers, Roseland, and other areas. “There are no standards for mixtures of chemicals,” Smith said. “You may hear from the EPA and the public relations people from the responsible parties like Biolab, ‘Oh no, it’s perfectly safe,’ but that’s based on a singular exposure to a singular chemical…It’s about the presence of the mixtures of chemicals because what you’re not being told is that the mixtures, there are no standards.”

The concept was also raised in a 2018 ACIP vaccine advisory meeting, when one member asked whether there were any comments on using this vaccine with other adjuvanted vaccines, to which the response was, “We have no data to make a recommendation one way or another.” Amanda Cohn, ACIP’s Executive Secretary at the time, said their “general approach” is that it is considered safe to give multiple vaccines at the same time if they are in different limbs.

The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 2011 after evaluating the research. The WHO has not concluded that EMF frequencies are safe, but rather said the “current evidence” does not “confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields.” 

There are a few studies examining the synergistic effects of EMF when combined with other environmental stressors. The researchers who conducted this study concluded that future research should focus on realistic “multi-stressor environmental contexts to more accurately assess potential health risks.”

A controversial hypothesis has been suggested that the high number of injuries on the San Francisco 49ers NFL team is, in part, caused by the electrical substation that sits next to the team’s stadium and practice facility.

While potential harms of EMF are frequently touted as a “conspiracy theory,” the latest research suggests a form of synergistic toxicity that is understudied and a level of “biological stress” that can have health impacts over the course of many years or decades.