Entire Store TAX-FREE! Clean Beauty Collection SHIPS FREE to most Canadian locations with $90 Order!
Entire Store TAX-FREE! Clean Beauty Collection SHIPS FREE to most Canadian locations with $90 Order!
April 24, 2021 9 min read
In this article, we introduce the broad categories of EMFs, what constitutes electrosmog, and what the latest research reveals with respect to its impact on our health and wellbeing.
Sources of Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) energies broadly fall into 3 categories1:
Biofields – Humans and all living organisms are beings of light and have electromagnetic energy flowing through their bodies. Our heartbeat is electromagnetic. Brainwave activity is electromagnetic at extremely low frequencies.
German biophysics researcher Dr. Fritz Popp’s work shows that DNA in living cells store and release photos creating “biophotonic emissions”. These biophotons - particles of light, with no mass – transmit information within and between cells.
Every cell has an electrical potential difference across the cell membrane. Once the cell’s electrical potential gradient begins to approach zero that cell will die. Similarly, it is possible to charge up a cell to make it healthier.
Figure 1: Electromagnetic Spectrum – Ionizing vs Non-Ionizing Radiation
The Electromagnetic Spectrum is arranged by frequency and wavelength with higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths to the right of the image. The spectrum is split into ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation based on the energy of the photon.
Ionizing means that that particular EMF has enough energy to disrupt the structure of an atom by knocking off electrons, transforming that neutral atom into an ion with a positive charge. Ions are a problem because they can produce free radicals. The negative impact of excessive free radicals in our bodies is explored inthis article.
The major types of ionizing radiation are neutrons from radioactive elements like X-rays and gamma rays. It is an undisputed fact that ionizing radiation causes DNA and cellular damage.
Non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to create ions and has generally been regarded as “safe and biologically harmless” for decades. As we share later in this article, latest research is now showing that this is flawed.
Within this category, we call out the different types of man-made radiation that everyone living in the modern world are currently exposed to from our surroundings. These all contribute to air pollution -electrosmog.
In May, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radiofrequency RFR EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma,a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead and gasoline exhaust.
Fast forward to 2018, this research reports that: “When considered with recent animal experimental evidence, the recent epidemiological studies strengthen and support the conclusion that RFR should be categorized as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1).”3 This is the same category as all types of ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays.
The 10-year, $30 million National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Studies of Cell Phone Radiation found that chronic exposure to RFR was associated with “clear evidence” of cancer in RFR-exposed male rats. In addition, exposed animals had significantly more DNA damage, heart damage and low birth weight.4
Amongst many published studies determining RFR harm to reproduction risks in both males and females, we call out a few representative ones:
- 2017 Kaiser Permanente study followed 913 pregnant women. Those who were exposed to higher levels of EMFs had a nearly 3x higher risk of miscarrying than those with lower exposures.6
- 2018 study, Radiations and Male Fertility concluded that cell phones, laptops, Wi-Fi and microwave ovens, the most common sources of non-ionizing radiations, have deleterious effects on sperm parameters (like sperm count, morphology, motility).7
Research has established that EMFs contribute to many, many more diseases than we can cover in this article.
In 2012, the BioInitiative Working Group, a collective of 29 authors from 10 countries including 10 M.D.s, 21 Ph.D.s, and an M.Sc., M.A., and M.P.H. released a massive 650-page report that presents compelling scientific evidence - urging government and policy makers to adopt more protective exposure guidelines to replace now obsolete safety standards that were based on research from the 1980’s. In 2020, the site has been updated to include over 1800 studies. Most of these studies report biological effects of low-intensity exposures to both RFR and ELF EMFs.
Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Research |
% Reported Effects (# studies) |
% Reported No Effects (# studies) |
Genetic Effects |
65% (224) |
35% (122) |
Free Radical Changes |
92% (240) |
8% (21) |
Neurological Effects |
73% (244) |
27% (92) |
Figure 2. Dr. Henry Lai, “Summary Report on RFR Research that Reported Effects vs No Effects”, Aug 13, 2020, BioInitiative.Org
Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF) EMF Research |
% Reported Effects (# studies) |
% Reported No Effects (# studies) |
Genetic Effects |
77% (160) |
23% (43) |
Free Radical Changes |
89% (235) |
11% (28) |
Neurological Effects |
91% (216) |
9% (22) |
Figure 3. Dr. Henry Lai, “Summary Report on Static/ELF-EMF Research that Reported Effects vs No Effects”, Aug 13, 2020, BioInitiative.Org
The most serious health endpoints that have been reported to be associated with extremely low frequency (ELF) and/or radiofrequency radiation (RFR) include:
Short-term effects on cognition, memory and learning, behavior, reaction time, attention and concentration, and altered brainwave activity (altered EEG) are also reported in the scientific literature.9
We cover their special circumstances and need for protection here.
This is where the damage starts.
With all the latest research and mounting evidence of biological harm, it is at best confusing if not outright mind boggling to see such statements below from Health agencies.
The World Health Organization (WHO) website states:
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation, approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.11
Health Canada today states:
There is no established scientific evidence that those who use cell phones are at increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects with the Canadian limits in place. This includes children and teenagers.12
Similar to cigarettes, asbestos, DDT and other environmental toxins, the science for EMF radiation precedes policy by 30-50 years. The industry that has the most to gain invests significantly to promote the messages it wants the public to consume.
A bioengineering professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Dr Henry Lai’s investigations discovered that industry-funded studies were 30 percent likely to find an effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies.13 A 2007 Analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives replicated Lai’s findings.14
In the meantime, the public believes that all is well, exposure goes unchecked, harm and suffering is inflicted, and lives are lost. We have seen this story play out.
Knowledge is power. You can choose to bury your head in the sand or take appropriate action to protect yourself and your loved ones.
EMFs is a complex topic – physicists, engineers, biologists, epidemiologists, doctors – all view this from a slightly different “expert” perspective. We have tried to distill and summarize what is essential.
Bottom line: We hope this article has heightened your awareness of the health risks associated with EMFs. We do not propose that you give up wireless technology and the connectivity and convenience it offers. But we do advocate safer use of this technology.
There are some very simple things that you can do right now to mitigate and reduce your exposure. We invite you to start here.
1 Havas, Magda, PhD, EMF Conference 2021, Pre-Conference Lecture #1 The Big Picture.
2 International Agency for Research on Cancer, “IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcionogenic to Humans”, Press Release, May 31, 2011, https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf.
3 Anthony B. Miller et al, “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)”, Environ Res,2018 Nov;167:673-683. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30196934/.
4 National Toxicology Program, “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation”, https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/cellphone.
5 Green America Interviews Dr. Devra Davis, Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?, https://www.greenamerica.org/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer/our-interview-dr-devra-davis-0.
6 De-Kun Li et al, “Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study”, Sci Rep 7, 17541 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16623-8.
7 K.K. Kesari et al, “Radiations and Male Fertility”, Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 9;16(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0431-1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30445985/.
8 Green America Interviews Dr. Devra Davis, Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?, https://www.greenamerica.org/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer/our-interview-dr-devra-davis-0.
9 BioInitiative Working Group, “There is More Evidence Than We Need”, https://bioinitiative.org/participants/do-we-know-enough-to-take-action/
10 Igor Yakymenko et al, “Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation”, Electromagn Biol Med, Early Online: 1–16 2015 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557, https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001122232.pdf.
11 WHO website, “Radiation: Electromagnetic Fields”, 4 Aug 2016 Q&A, https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/radiation-electromagnetic-fields.
12 Government of Canada, “5G technology, cell phones, cell phone towers and antennas”, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/cell-phones-towers.html.
13 https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry
14 Anke Huss et al, “Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies”, Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Jan; 115(1): 1–4. Published online 2006 Sep 15. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9149, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/
April 14, 2022 2 min read
April 12, 2022 3 min read
April 08, 2022 2 min read