Are EMFs Dangerous? What You Should Know About Current Standards and Health Risks

Ashley

January 27, 2025

Should you worry about EMFs?

EMF blockers and low-EMF devices are all the rage in the trendy new wellness space. Influencers will talk about using wired headphones instead of Bluetooth devices, and only purchasing new devices that are certified to be low-EMF. But what are EMFs? And how dangerous are they? In my view… it depends. We are going to start with the basics and build up from there.

What is an EMF?

First let’s talk about definitions. EMF stands for “electric and magnetic fields” or “electromagnetic fields”, which are a type of radiation. I wrote about the electromagnetic spectrum (which is a spectrum of many different kinds of EMFs) in a previous post related to microwave ovens, but let’s review. Think back to when you learned about the electromagnetic spectrum and the different types of radiation (see diagram and video explanation below). Visible light and anything lower in energy, like microwaves or radio waves, is “non-ionizing” radiation. This means it cannot directly alter or cause damage to cells or molecules. Anything higher in energy than visible light is “ionizing” radiation. This means it CAN alter or cause damage to cells and molecules. This is why we wear sunscreen when we spend time outside in the sun (UV exposure), and why doctors take precautions before giving you an X-ray. 

Electric and magnetic components

EMFs have two parts: electric fields and magnetic fields. Both of these fields can be either natural or man-made.

  • Have you ever shocked someone in the winter when you touch them? This is an example of a natural electric field, and it happens when electrons transfer and one person becomes significantly more “charged” than the person they touch. The shock occurs because of the different electric fields. Any type of charged object or particle creates an electric field. Many of our man-made devices also create an electric field; however, a device does not have to be on to have an electric field.
    • Electric fields are measured in voltage. The higher the voltage, the greater the strength of the electric field.
    • Electric fields are relatively easily blocked by walls or other objects.
  • Magnetic fields on the other hand only occur when charged particles are moving. An example of a natural magnetic field is the Earth – its magnetic field is what causes a compass to point North. Our man-made devices also have magnetic fields. There has to be current flowing to produce a magnetic field, so devices must be on to produce this type of field.
    • Magnetic fields are measured in microtesla (uT). The greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. Magnetic fields also vary in strength based on power consumption.
    • Magnetic fields can pass through almost anything. Walls, objects, or people will not shield you from a magnetic field.

Types of non-ionizing EMF radiation

We know that ionizing radiation like UV light and X-rays can cause damage. The current challenge when it comes to EMF exposure is around the consistent, low-level, non-ionizing radiation exposure. Let’s review some of the common types of non-ionizing EMF radiation:

  • Extremely Low Frequency EMFs (ELF): this is the lowest frequency range and includes things like power lines, electric blankets, electrical appliances like a toaster oven or hair dryer, lamps, etc. 
  • Very Low Frequency EMFs (VLF): if you hear the term “dirty electricity”, the person is referencing VLF EMF. This is different from the above because devices emitting VLF use current or voltage in short pulses. This can come from things like a dimmer switch or compact fluorescent lamps.
  • Radiowave Frequency (RF): this is between ELF and MW frequencies and includes many common exposures like smartphones, tablets, laptop computers, Bluetooth devices, radio and television antennas, and WiFi. MRI and satellite stations also operate within the RF range, but at an even higher frequency than the other devices mentioned.
  • Microwave Frequency (MW): this is one of the highest non-ionizing frequencies and primarily includes kitchen microwaves used to heat up food. 

How we define EMF effects: thermal and non-thermal

Some devices today have a requirement to assess the SAR rating. SAR stands for “Specific Absorption Rate” and it’s defined as the rate that human biological tissue absorbs electromagnetic energy. This rate is important because if human tissue absorbs enough electromagnetic energy, the human biological tissue increases in temperature. This is a thermal effect due to the temperature increase. A significant temperature increase can cause immediate damage, but the low-level non-ionizing EMFs we are talking about comes with a very small temperature increase (thermal effect) or possibly no temperature change at all (non-thermal effect).

IMPORTANT: humans are bioelectrical systems!

If you read nothing else in this post, this is the most important! Human bodies are what we refer to as “bioelectrical systems”. There are chemical reactions that happen in our body everyday from our digestion process to how our heart works. These reactions create (very minimal) electrical current in our body. The concern around EMFs is that these artificial sources of electromagnetic fields can disrupt or interfere with the normal bioelectrical processes happening in our body. Additionally, EMF exposures have increased exponentially in the past 60-75 years.

Not only has exposure increased, but devices today often emit EMFs covering all of the ranges we discussed (ELF, VLF, RF) – this is sometimes referred to as “electrosmog”. This makes research extremely difficult because (1) EMF affects everyone, (2) there are an infinite number of exposure combinations for a person, and (3) it’s impossible to measure unless the person is wearing a measuring device at all times. As always, I want you to have the knowledge to form your own opinion on the topic! I am certainly not advocating for us to give up all technology, but given the exponential increase in EMF exposure and the possible effects it could have on humans, I think it’s worth some further investigation and possibly worth investing in reasonable protections against EMF exposure.

Risks of EMF exposure

Now that we have a better understanding of what EMFs are and the different ways they can affect humans, let’s walk through some study findings and correlations to specific diseases. There are many differing opinions on the research, so let’s dig in!

  • Childhood Leukemia. One of the first negative associations with EMF exposure came with a 1979 study indicating children living closer to power lines were at a greater risk of developing leukemia. More recent studies have muddied the waters a little bit, making it unclear if EMF exposure is a true cause of leukemia. Most agencies and reports (Bioinitiative Report, Recommended Europe Guidance, National Cancer Institute) now agree that ELF daily exposure at levels of 0.3 to 0.4 µT (microTesla) puts children at an increased risk of developing leukemia. Not all agencies accept this recommendation; those agencies claim the sample sizes from the studies are too small to validate causation. Maybe this is true… but I wouldn’t want to put my child at risk.
  • Various Cancers.
    • Humans. The majority of agencies and reports do NOT consider EMF exposure a risk factor or cause for cancer development (aside from childhood leukemia mentioned above). This includes the US National Institute of Health and the World Health Organization. One reason for this is no plausible mechanism has been found to indicate HOW non-ionizing and non-thermal EMF radiation can cause cancer. My retort would be… do we have to understand the mechanism before admitting it’s potentially harmful?
      • Brain Cancer. One study indicates a 40% increased risk of malignant glioma or acoustic neuroma (brain cancer) with heavy cell phone use (an average of 30 minutes per day for 10 years). The study indicates a larger concern when cell phone use was primarily on one side of the head. 
      • Breast Cancer. One study associated EMF exposure with breast cancer risk, but most did not. The Bioinitiative Report states long-term ELF magnetic field exposure at 1 µT is indeed a risk factor in developing breast cancer. 
    • Animals. The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) undertook a two-year radiofrequency (RF) EMF study with rats and mice. There was clear evidence for heart tumors in male rats, and some evidence for brain and adrenal gland tumors in male rats. This was one study, so many agencies and reports argue there is no clear proof of EMFs causing these tumors – it could have been from other factors. Additionally, it can be hard to translate animal study results into guidelines for humans, especially when the human studies give less clear results. It could be that EMFs affect animals and humans differently, or it could be that it’s much more difficult to arrange a human study to fully capture the same effects seen through animal studies.
    • IARC Classification. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was established by the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified EMFs as Group 2B, which means “The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There is not enough evidence to claim it definitively causes cancer. But, there’s not enough evidence to say it’s completely harmless either.
  • Reproductive Health. Again, some agencies do not accept the research indicating EMFs affect reproductive health. The Bioinitiative Report says otherwise. The majority of studies around EMFs impact has been on sperm health. Studies have shown damage to sperm health, quality, and motility from keeping a cell phone in your pocket or on your belt, or using a laptop on your lap. Sperm cannot repair DNA damage, so it’s especially important to avoid damage from the start.
  • Biological Changes. Here’s the current theory of how non-ionizing and non-thermal EMF radiation can affect humans in the ways described above. EMFs create what some refer to as “subatomic chaos.” This environmental subatomic chaos changes the charge of the cells in our human body or the electric current within our human body. When this happens, it kicks off a biological reaction to form reactive oxygen species (ROS), which is a type of free radical. Forming and dealing with free radicals is something our bodies know how to do. But when EMFs are creating more and more free radicals, our bodies don’t have the capacity to manage all of them. This is what causes DNA damage. DNA damage can cause cancer and other health issues.
  • Alzheimer’s. Alzheimer’s disease is complex, but The Bioinitiative Report indicates long-term ELF MF exposure may increase the risk for developing Alzheimer’s. 75% of studies (12 total studies) which reviewed EMF exposure association with Alzheimer’s indicate this as a likely risk.
  • Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). Some people experience symptoms like headaches, dizziness, fatigue, sleep problems, and depression that they attribute to EMF exposure. While some people recognize that this may be a chronic illness, most agencies do not recognize this as an actual condition (including the European Commission and the World Health Organization). People that claim to have EHS find that decreasing exposure to EMFs helps alleviate their symptoms, which is why they believe EMFs are the root cause. If this is true, it’s highly individualized and at this point, there’s no way to predict or explain why a particular person may have an adverse reaction to EMF exposure.

The burden of proof…

Basically, all of the agencies and organizations that have power to change the regulations about EMF exposure believe the risk is extremely low, and we must wait for foolproof evidence before making any regulatory changes. There are other groups working to change this thought process (like the working group who prepared the Bioinitiative Report) who assume the position of “if we can’t prove it’s safe, why aren’t we making changes now?” 

To close the section of potential dangers of EMF exposure, I want to leave you with an interesting quote from The Bioinitiative Report…

“Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety standards [to heal bone fractures, heal skin wounds, reduce pain and swelling, etc.], proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved EMF medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox… This leads to the obvious question. How can scientists dispute the harmful effects of EMF exposures while at the same time using forms of EMF treatment that are proven to heal the body?”

Current EMF exposure standards

The International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) made recommendations for EMF exposure in 1998. Here’s a summary of the exposure limits set by the ICNIRP.

Electric FieldMagnetic FieldCell Phone Base StationMicrowave
Frequency50 Hz50 Hz900 MHz1.8 GHz2.45 GHz
Public Exposure Limit5000 V/m100 µT4.5 W/m29.0 W/m210.0 W/m2

A few reminders to put these limits into context:

  • The “Electric Field” and “Magnetic Field” frequencies fall into the “Extremely Low Frequency” (ELF) category. Do you remember earlier we reviewed the study on childhood leukemia where an association was found at levels > 0.3 to 0.4 µT of daily exposure? ICNIRP set the limit 250 times higher.
  • Today’s 5G cell phones use frequencies of up to 50 GHz. They also use blended frequencies to get the best coverage and fastest speeds. Can the ICNIRP guidelines from 1998 really be enough to assess the advanced technologies we have in 2025?

Most governing bodies do not yet accept the research regarding non-thermal effects of EMFs and the impact on our bioelectrical systems. This is one of the reasons why the guideline safety limits from ICNIRP are so high – they are based on thermal heating effects (RF) and inducing electric current in the body (ELF). Now thermal effects are dangerous, so it’s important to have these limits. However, this may not be the only concern. Most governing bodies like the European Commission and the US Food and Drug Administration use the ICNIRP guidance to set their country-specific regulations. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have joint responsibility for regulating cell phones. Both agencies agree there is no proven link between cell phones or other wireless technologies and cancer or other illnesses. 

Why haven’t these regulations been updated?

Why are we still using guidance from 1998? Well, there’s a few reasons.

  1. As we’ve already covered, research on EMFs is very difficult. Scientists and government agencies have already declared low levels of EMFs as safe. And without solid research findings from well-designed long-term studies, there’s often not a basis for scientists to change their recommendations. I’m not saying this is how it should work – but this is the reality of the world we live in.
  2. There is no population “unexposed” to EMFs. They are everywhere in today’s world. How can we tell if EMF exposure increases risks of diseases when everyone is exposed? 
  3. Capitalism. Companies make money through innovation, creating a “need” for a product, and the overconsumption problem we have in the United States. Companies are always going to be looking for ways to be faster, more efficient, and better than the competition. For new, innovative technologies there are less guardrails around what can and cannot be produced because of the limited information available on the technology. This is why many hazardous chemicals like PFAS are polluting the environment – companies found a new technology and wanted to make money while disregarding the potential health consequences. I’m not suggesting we equate PFAS with EMFs, but we don’t have a great history of limiting hazardous things before they actively harm people.
  4. As we discussed before, there is no accepted mechanism for the biological reaction. Some scientists believe that without a proven mechanism, it must not be true. If we can’t prove HOW EMFs cause cancer, then it must be something else causing the cancer. This muddies the waters for regulators because without proof, how can they implement rules and guidelines to protect us?

How EMF regulations can be changed

What needs to happen for regulations to catch up?

  1. More research needs to be completed, particularly on newer technologies. 4G, 5G, and LTE service for cell phones was developed many years after the current available guidance. In addition, it’s important to study multi-frequency effects at the same time because (1) we are exposed to more than one EMF device at once and (2) 5G and other newer technologies use multiple frequencies at the same time to enhance service and speed. 
  2. Before rolling out new technologies and new exposure methods for humans, there should be an assessment and agreement by researchers and regulators BEFORE deploying the technology. In addition, consumers need to be made aware of EMF levels of the devices they are purchasing, and the potential dangers that come with it. 
  3. Use The Precautionary Principle. Rather than wait until researchers have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is harmful to humans, the Precautionary Principle would justify new regulations to protect human health before the research “proves” it due to the potential significant effect it could have if it proves to be harmful.

There are a few positive initiatives ongoing about EMFs. The European Environment Agency is advocating for use of the Precautionary Principle before EMFs are the new asbestos or tobacco. France adopted a few laws to better protect their people from EMFs. This includes banning WiFi in nurseries (children under three years old) and to make local EMF exposure more visible to the public by placing warning signs in areas where WiFi is in use and requiring manufacturers to clearly share the SAR value of devices. In 2016, over 200 scientists appealed to the United Nations and the World Health Organization trying to garner attention to what they felt were inadequate international guidelines for EMFs by the ICNIRP. Lastly, the Bioinitiative Working Group has published a lot of information around potential harm of EMFs, along with recommendations for new guidelines.

My take on EMF exposure

As I sit here writing this blog post, my laptop is on my lap, my cell phone is right next to me, and I’m wearing a fitness tracker that I continuously have connected via Bluetooth to my phone. We don’t turn our WiFi off in the evenings, and I sleep with my phone on my nightstand.

In most other areas of my life, I operate using the “precautionary principle”. I’d rather pay a little bit more for organic vegetables and find out it didn’t really matter, than expose myself to a dangerous pesticide for years before finding out it’s harmful. I’d rather not wear my Thinx period underwear and find out PFAS aren’t harmful at that level, than continuously expose myself to PFAS since Thinx lost a lawsuit over the contamination levels. I’d rather use fluoride-free toothpaste to limit my exposure than find out fluoride was harming me for 20+ years. After all this research on EMFs, it’s time I apply the same principle here and start thinking about my exposure differently. 

How to reduce your exposure to EMFs

If you’re like me and interested in limiting your exposure to EMFs, here are some ideas!

  1. In general, do things to support your overall health to prevent EMFs from having as large of an impact. This includes eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, exercising, avoiding environmental toxins from beauty products, cleaning products, etc. You can also protect your cells against free radical damage through the foods you eat. As we discussed, free radical formation is a normal part of your cell’s processes, but we don’t want too many free radicals. Eat lots of vegetables and fruits which are full of various antioxidants and vitamins.
  2. Another general rule is that electric and magnetic fields drop significantly the further away you are from the source. If you’re concerned about EMFs, a great rule of thumb is to move away from the appliance or whatever device you’re concerned with.
  3. For cell phone exposure, here’s a few tips:
    1. If you’re calling someone, use speaker phone to avoid the phone being in close proximity to your head for long periods of time.
    2. Wait to make a call on your cell phone until the signal is strong. If there’s a weak signal, your phone has to work harder (and emit more EMFs).
    3. Don’t keep your phone in your pocket or in your lap. If you want to put your phone in your pocket, turn on airplane mode first (and make sure WiFi and Bluetooth are off, too)
    4. Close your apps when you’re done with them. Your phone is working in the background when they are still open. 
    5. Avoid wireless chargers. When charging your phone, avoid charging it right next to you or while holding it to reduce EMF exposure.
  4. For WiFi exposure, here’s a few tips:
    1. Unplug your WiFi router in the evening. This prevents 24/7 exposure.
    2. If possible, it’s best to use an Ethernet cable connection for internet access as opposed to WiFi if you want to avoid as much EMFs as possible.
    3. When WiFi is on, try to sit as far away as reasonably possible to avoid exposure.
  5. For general appliance exposure, here’s some tips.
    1. Choose wired accessories (keyboard, mouse, printer, baby monitor, headphones, etc.) over wireless.
    2. Unplug all appliances when they are not in use. The further you are from the appliance, the safer you are from the EMFs it emits!
    3. On/off switches are preferable to dimmer switches.
    4. LED light bulbs are better than fluorescent light bulbs when it comes to EMF exposure.
    5. Here are some common household appliances and the estimated electric and magnetic fields associated with them at different distances.
ApplianceElectric Field (V/m) at 30cmMagnetic Field (µT)at 3cm distanceMagnetic Field (µT)at 30cm distanceMagnetic Field (µT)at 1m distance
Guidance Limit5,000100100100
Refrigerator1200.5 – 1.70.01 – 0.25< 0.01
Hair Dryer806 – 2,0000.01 – 70.01 – 0.03
Color TV602.5 – 500.04 – 20.01 – 0.15
Vacuum Cleaner50200 – 8002 – 200.13 – 2
Electric Oven81 – 500.15 – 0.50.01 – 0.04
Fluorescent Light540 – 4000.5 – 20.02 – 0.25

EMF remediation

The last thing you can do to reduce your exposure to EMFs is to purchase EMF remediation devices. Earlier in this post I shared a little bit about how EMFs create what’s referred to as “subatomic chaos.” This subatomic chaos causes a reaction and eventually causes free radicals to form in our cells, which can damage DNA and cause harm. If you use an EMF blocking device (Faraday bag or something similar), you will not be able to use your device. EMF remediation on the other hand attaches to your devices like your cell phone, WiFi, or laptop, and “fixes” the subatomic chaos created by EMFs in the environment. The theory is that if you remediate the subatomic chaos, free radicals won’t form, and EMF exposure will not harm you without giving up technology.

This theory is not fully accepted by the scientific community. I like using technology and I’m also worried about EMF exposure, so I purchased an EMF remediation device from EMF’d Up for my phone, my husband’s phone, and our WiFi router. I am looking forward to using them and seeing how it affects us!

How to move forward

This blog post took a ton of research because it’s an advanced topic that many don’t fully understand. Many think EMFs are not harmful. Others think EMFs are the next big environmental toxin. I’m not really a fan of either extreme. I think there’s a middle ground where we can still enjoy the benefits of some technology without it harming our health, but we need more studies, conversations, and research to fully understand the implications and what limits we need. We also need our regulators to evaluate new technologies BEFORE introducing them to the public so we have a chance to limit harmful exposure before it happens!

SOURCES:

Category :

Environment

,

Health

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ashley

sharing my responsible journey and inspiring yours

Follow me on social media!

Popular Posts

sharing my responsible journey and inspiring yours