New NIEHS Report Shows the Tools, But the Truth Has Been Known for Decades

Why the 2025 WHO Science Leaves No Room for Hedging on RF Risk

The Report in Brief

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/atniehs/dtt/assoc/reports/cellphonerfr

In August 2025, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) released a 200-page technical document describing a newly built whole-body radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure system for rodents. It’s a smaller, flexible version of the reverberation chambers used in the landmark U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies.

The stated purpose? To create a precise, well-characterized environment for short- and long-term RF exposure experiments.

This new system:

Runs GSM and CDMA modulations at 900 MHz and 1,900 MHz—frequencies still embedded in 4G and 5G infrastructure.
Maintains SAR levels within ~10% of target across exposure groups.
Allows continuous environmental monitoring and video-based animal observation.
Passes technical verification from NIST.

The short-term 5-day trial runs reported here showed:

No weight loss or survival impact in the first week.
No measurable DNA damage in brain, liver, heart, or blood via alkaline comet assay.
No usable body temperature data due to technical issues.

But—crucially—the Executive Summary reaffirms the NTP’s long-term findings:

Increased malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats.
Increased malignant gliomas of the brain in male rats.
Other tumor and lesion types in multiple organs.

The WHO 2025 Evidence: Zero Room for Doubt

Fast forward to this year: The World Health Organization’s RF-EMF systematic reviews (commissioned independently and published in Environment International) are crystal clear.

1. High Certainty: Cancer

The WHO animal cancer review found high certainty of evidence—the highest GRADE rating—that RF exposure causes:

Malignant heart schwannomas in male rats.
Brain gliomas in male rats.

High certainty means new evidence is unlikely to change the conclusion. This isn’t speculation; it’s as close to scientific finality as you get in toxicology.

2. High Certainty: Reduced Pregnancy Rate

In a separate WHO-commissioned review, high certainty was also assigned to RF-induced reduction in pregnancy rate in animal studies. This upgrade came after a 2025 corrigendum corrected earlier data handling and bias assessments.

3. Mechanistic Plausibility

Oxidative stress, DNA damage, calcium channel disruption—mechanisms long proposed—now have hundreds of studies behind them. They fit the observed outcomes in both cancer and reproductive harm.

Three Decades of Regulatory Failure

The FCC’s thermal-only guidelines, set in 1996, are based on 1950s military science—designed only to prevent tissue heating, not to account for subtle, chronic biological disruption.
By the late 1990s, there was already credible evidence of non-thermal effects. That’s when the U.S. should have been building exposure chambers like these, running targeted experiments, and updating safety standards.

Instead:

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (1996) prohibited local governments from considering health effects in tower siting decisions if FCC limits were met.
Regulatory agencies ignored mounting evidence from independent labs.
Industry-aligned voices claimed “no proof” while funding studies designed to find nothing.
The 2021 D.C. Circuit Court ruled the FCC had failed to justify keeping outdated limits in light of the evidence—but no changes followed.

This inaction has played out against the worst health crisis in modern U.S. history, with exponential rises in:

Neurological conditions (ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, neurodegenerative diseases).
Metabolic disorders.
Cancer rates in young adults.

Why This Chamber Matters—And Why It’s 20 Years Too Late

The NIEHS report shows that America can build precise, controlled, real-world-relevant RF exposure systems. That’s good news for science—but it’s also an indictment of the decades lost.

If such systems had been built and deployed in the early 2000s:

We could have confirmed (or refuted) non-thermal risk mechanisms before smartphones became global necessities.
Safety limits could have been updated in time to prevent billions from unnecessary chronic exposure.
The current public health toll might have been avoided.

Instead, we’re here in 2025, finally ready to study RF risk with the right tools—long after the WHO has already issued high-certainty verdicts.

The Real Takeaway

The NIEHS report is not a “clean bill of health” for wireless radiation. The 5-day data are irrelevant to chronic effects, and the report itself repeats the NTP’s tumor findings that now stand validated by WHO.

The only honest conclusion in 2025 is:

The risk is real.
It’s been known for years.
The regulatory system has failed.

Any “hedging” in tone can’t change the weight of evidence:

We have high-certainty proof that RF-EMF causes cancer and reduces fertility in animals.
Human evidence is hampered by poor exposure classification, not by a lack of effect.
The mechanisms are biologically plausible and demonstrated in controlled experiments.

Where We Go From Here

Acknowledge the truth. Stop pretending the jury is still out.
Overhaul exposure limits. Include non-thermal effects and long-term endpoints.
Fund independent research. Use platforms like the NIEHS chambers to test 4G, 5G, and emerging waveforms now—not in 20 years.
Repeal Section 704. Restore local authority to act on health concerns.
Educate the public. Give people actionable steps to reduce exposure today.

Full NIEHS Report PDF: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/atniehs/dtt/assoc/reports/cellphonerfr
WHO 2025 Animal Cancer Review:
WHO 2025 Male Fertility Corrigendum:

Source