Call or Text: +1 727-610-1188

Free worldwide shipping on all orders over $100.00

Dr. Henry Lai’s Research Compilation

A Deep Dive into the Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Click here to go back to why Elon Musk and the New York Times got it wrong on cell phone radiation. 

Introduction: The conversation around the health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) takes a significant turn with the comprehensive research compilation by Dr. Henry Lai. A Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and a respected figure in the field of EMF research, Dr. Lai has meticulously gathered and summarized studies spanning over three decades. His work, which covers research from 1990 to July 2023, offers an extensive look into the biological effects of exposure to RFR and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static EMF. This blog post aims to explore the insights and implications of Dr. Lai’s extensive research collection.

Research Overview: Dr. Lai’s collection encompasses around 2,500 studies, focusing on the oxidative effects, DNA damage, and genetic, neurological, and reproductive impacts of RFR and ELF EMF exposure. His methodical approach to compiling research from various sources provides a holistic view of the scientific understanding in this field. The studies analyzed cover a range of EMF sources, including cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices, offering a comprehensive perspective on everyday exposure scenarios.

Key Findings: Dr. Lai’s analysis reveals a significant portion of studies reporting adverse effects from RFR and ELF EMF exposure. A striking majority of these studies found oxidative effects or free radicals, and DNA damage, highlighting potential risks to human health. Specifically, a considerable percentage of studies reported significant effects on genetic factors, neurological health, and reproductive and developmental processes. These findings align with the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) classification of RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” and suggest the possibility of a future reclassification to a higher risk category.

Implications: The implications of Dr. Lai’s research compilation are profound, particularly in the context of current debates over EMF safety standards and public health policies. His findings support calls for more stringent regulations and precautionary measures, especially considering the widespread use of wireless technology. Additionally, the research highlights the need for continuous monitoring and reevaluation of safety guidelines to ensure they reflect the latest scientific understanding and adequately protect public health.

Conclusion: Dr. Henry Lai’s comprehensive research compilation is a crucial contribution to our understanding of the potential health risks associated with EMF and RFR exposure. As we navigate an increasingly wireless world, his work underscores the importance of ongoing research and informed decision-making in both personal device use and public health policy. The body of evidence presented by Dr. Lai serves as a reminder of the need for caution and further study in this rapidly evolving field.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive effects has found significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 70% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 74% to 91% reported significant effects.

Currently, there are about 2,500 studies in Dr. Henry Lai’s collection of research on the effects of exposure to RFR and static or ELF/static fields EMF. The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the links below. Government and scientists who receive industry funding for their research often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) or “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) at the next expert review.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.
The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell cultures (in vitro).

Summary of Results (July 2023)

Radio frequency radiation (RFR)

  • 89% (n=297) of 333 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1997 reported significant effects including 96% (n=89) of 92 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate)  ≤ 0.40 W/kg.
  • 70% (n=312) of 448 RFR genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 79% (n=103) of 131 studies of gene expression.
  • 76% (n=322) of 423 RFR neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.
  • 82% (n=262) of 317 RFR reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the studies that reported significant effects, 51 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 31 studies had a SAR ≤  0.08 W/kg.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

  • 91% (n=282) of 311 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.
  • 84% (n=282) of 337 ELF/static EMF genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 95% (n=168) of 177 studies of gene expression.
  • 91% (n=310) of 339 ELF/static EMF neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.
  • 74% (n=62) of 83 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

Links to download each set of research abstracts

   RFR = radio frequency electromagnetic fields   ELF = extremely low frequency or static electromagnetic fields

Free Worldwide shipping

On all orders above $100

Easy 30 days returns

30 days money back guarantee

Replacement Warranty

Best replacement warranty in the business

100% Secure Checkout

AMX / MasterCard / Visa