Our responsibility is to protect children. Their health must come before the convenience of an industry, the preferences of a vendor, or the embarrassment of admitting that a school’s technology strategy needs to change.

Parents deserve healthy children and answers they can act on. Schools deserve the funding and infrastructure to deliver an education that puts those children first.

On September 8, 2026, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields published a position statement calling for stronger protection of children from wireless radiation and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Updated September 9, the statement connects these environmental exposures with the broader debate about screen time. Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is listed among the commission’s members. This is a collective scientific and public-health position statement, supported by an extensive reference list. 1

RF Safe strongly supports its demand for preventive action. We are also asking ICBE-EMF to take the next step: explicitly call for Li-Fi adoption and mandates, backed by fiber and Ethernet, within a Clean Ether Act that makes children’s environmental health a public obligation.

The practical question belongs in every school board meeting: can we deliver the same educational service while reducing avoidable exposure? Where the answer is yes, make the improvement. Fund it. Set a deadline. Verify the result.

What ICBE-EMF is asking governments and schools to do

The commission calls for updated exposure limits, independent research, testing that reflects children’s actual device use, and stronger oversight before and after products reach the market. Its school recommendations include replacing Wi-Fi with wired Ethernet, disabling RF transmitters, powering phones off, providing wired telephones, reducing ELF exposure, and independently measuring the school environment. It also addresses nearby towers, power lines, and substations. 1

That is a consequential expansion of the school technology debate. A classroom policy can address what children do with their devices while leaving the design of the surrounding network untouched. RF Safe’s position is that both deserve scrutiny. Educational value, attention, sleep, connectivity, and environmental exposure belong in the same procurement conversation.

Screen time and electromagnetic exposure need separate measurements

A device combines several different exposures and experiences. The distinctions matter because each requires a different intervention.

Part of the technology environment	What should be assessed	What the intervention addresses
Digital content and time spent using it	Notifications, engagement design, bedtime use, displaced activities	Attention, sleep routines, social interaction, and opportunities for physical activity
RF communications	Cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth transmissions; device position and operating mode	Exposure associated with transmitting data through radio waves
Electrical operation	Power-frequency and other low-frequency fields from equipment, wiring, and charging systems	Electrical sources that remain relevant even with a wired internet connection
Optical exposure	Screen brightness, spectrum, flicker, and timing	Visual comfort and the light environment, including nighttime exposure

The distinctions help us choose the right intervention. They must also lead to a complete picture of the child’s environment. The same child experiences the content, the light, the RF transmissions, and the electrical environment together.

A 2016 systematic review in JAMA Pediatrics included 20 studies involving 125,198 children. Bedtime use of portable media devices was associated with inadequate sleep, poorer sleep quality, and daytime sleepiness. Device access at night was also associated with adverse sleep outcomes. Crucially, the review excluded studies investigating electromagnetic radiation. Its results support action on bedtime device access; they do not isolate RF as the cause. 2

The implication for research is straightforward. Record the content, timing, and duration of use alongside the physical exposure. Compare otherwise similar activities across wired, wireless, and offline conditions. Measure the device’s actual transmissions instead of assuming that one hour of screen time represents one uniform RF dose. Research budgets must make room for the physical environment surrounding digital behavior.

For schools, that distinction opens useful choices. A lesson can retain its digital materials while changing the connection method. A device can support learning without delivering notifications throughout the day. A network decision and a teaching decision can each be evaluated on their own merits.

A lower-fidelity biological state: the connection RF Safe wants examined

RF Safe uses the phrase “lower-fidelity biological state” to describe a unifying hypothesis: environmental stressors can compromise the precision, timing, and coordination of biological function. It is our interpretive framework for connecting research questions across systems; it is not a diagnosis or a single mechanism established for every type of field.

The focus is biological performance. Can cells maintain their signaling and repair processes? Can the nervous system coordinate activity? Can a child obtain restorative sleep, learn, and develop within a supportive environment? An exposure assessment that stops at an acute injury threshold cannot, by itself, answer all those questions.

One relevant body of research concerns oxidative stress. Yakymenko and colleagues reviewed experimental studies reporting RF-related changes in reactive oxygen species, lipid oxidation, DNA damage, and antioxidant activity. These are molecular processes with consequences for cellular regulation, not merely questions about whether tissue feels warm. The review supplies one line of mechanistic evidence, rather than a universal dose-response rule. 17

A separate review by Martel and colleagues examines connections among electromagnetic environments, circadian regulation, and downstream physiology. Some proposed mechanisms remain hypotheses. Its relevance to RF Safe’s framework is the attention it gives to biological timing and environmental inputs. 18

Different stressors need not share an identical initial interaction to place demands on overlapping biological systems. Our demand is that research evaluate those converging pathways and real combinations directly. We should be investigating the conditions that preserve healthy function throughout development, with prevention built into the technology children use.

The animal-cancer evidence demands a response

The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s findings are central to the scientific debate. In its two-year studies, NTP reported clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to the tested RF conditions. It reported some evidence of malignant brain gliomas and adrenal-gland tumors in male rats. Findings in female rats and in mice were less conclusive. 3

These controlled animal experiments used exposures associated with 2G and 3G technologies. They identify a hazard signal; translating it into a child’s risk under a particular exposure requires further assessment. The obligation to investigate and reduce avoidable exposure is immediate. 3

The Ramazzini Institute provides a separate experimental line. Its study involved 2,448 rats exposed to a 1.8 GHz GSM field from prenatal life until natural death, for 19 hours daily. It found a statistically significant increase in heart schwannomas in males at its highest exposure level. The reported increase in malignant glial tumors in females was not statistically significant. 4

The convergence on heart Schwann-cell tumors is especially important. Different experimental settings produced a related tumor finding. That observation strengthens the case for pursuing the biology, refining exposure assessment, and evaluating measures that reduce unnecessary exposure.

In 2025, Mevissen and colleagues published a systematic review of RF exposure and cancer in laboratory animals, partially funded by WHO’s radioprotection program. The review included 52 studies and judged the evidence for increased glioma and heart schwannoma incidence in male rats to be of high certainty. Evidence varied across organs and outcomes, and the authors emphasized the complexity of extrapolating RF risk to humans. 5

“High certainty” describes those animal findings. The policy demand follows clearly: fund prevention, investigate the mechanisms, and reassess protection. Children should not spend their school years waiting for institutions to decide whether the evidence deserves their attention.

Human evidence and the case for prevention

Joel Moskowitz coauthored a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies of cellular-phone use and tumors. Overall regular use was not associated with increased tumor risk in the pooled analysis, while the subgroup with more than 1,000 cumulative call hours showed a statistically significant increase. Results also differed among research groups. 6

That pattern makes exposure assessment and accumulated use central questions. Treating all users as one uniform category can obscure the very differences a health assessment needs to investigate.

There is substantial disagreement in the broader literature. The National Cancer Institute’s assessment says the evidence to date suggests that cell-phone use does not cause cancer in humans. It cites large studies, including COSMOS, that did not find increased risks for the investigated brain tumors, as well as mixed results elsewhere. 7

RF Safe’s position is direct: disagreement about the size of human risk does not excuse refusing practical prevention. Serious experimental findings, lifelong exposure beginning in childhood, and opportunities to reduce exposure justify investment now.

A decision to install Ethernet does not require assigning an exact lifetime cancer probability to a classroom. It requires determining whether the educational need can be met with fewer intentional RF transmissions and a workable, accessible network.

Children’s anatomy belongs in testing

Children’s exposure cannot be adequately described by attaching a child’s age to an adult exposure scenario.

Fernández and colleagues’ 2018 anatomical modeling study examined phone use near the ear and virtual-reality arrangements near the eyes. It found substantially higher localized absorption in some child tissues than in the adult models. The authors argued for more refined compliance testing that accounts for age and anatomy. 8

The word “localized” matters. A large difference in a particular modeled brain region is not a multiplier for the entire body, every frequency, or every device. Absorption modeling also does not by itself measure disease incidence.

The practical conclusion is compelling: assess the bodies and use conditions that products will actually encounter. A procurement specification should require clear documentation of test positions, separation distances, antenna behavior, and simultaneous operating modes. A laptop used on a desk, a phone held against the body, and a wireless headset should not be treated as interchangeable exposure situations.

Children should not have to compensate for unclear technical assumptions buried in a manual.

Memory and sleep research point toward better studies

A 2018 prospective study of Swiss adolescents modeled individual RF brain exposure and followed memory performance over a year. It reported associations with reduced figural-memory scores in some analyses, including those using network-operator data. The whole-sample estimate’s confidence interval included no effect. The authors called for confirmation in other populations. 9

The study is valuable because it attempted to distinguish RF exposure from media-use behavior. That is the kind of question future research should sharpen: what changes when exposure changes while the activity remains comparable?

A 2024 double-blind crossover pilot study evaluated overnight RF exposure in a small adult sample. It reported poorer subjective sleep quality and changes in some EEG measures, while actigraphy and heart-rate-variability outcomes did not differ. Only 12 participants contributed data, with smaller samples for individual outcomes. It is a research lead, not a population-wide estimate of harm or a pediatric trial. 10

Public funding should support larger, preregistered replication studies with appropriate exposure measurements and transparent analysis plans. Such work should evaluate children’s relevant developmental outcomes without assuming that every detected physiological change represents injury.

Reproduction, prenatal development, and combined exposures belong in the argument

Protection must begin before a child enters a classroom. The statement’s reproductive and developmental concerns extend the discussion to pregnancy and parental exposures. 1

A 2025 systematic review of 18 animal studies reported adverse changes in testicular tissue and sperm parameters following the studied mobile-phone radiation exposures. These included changes in sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology. These are animal reproductive findings that call for better human assessment and exposure-conscious device design. 19

In a prenatal mouse experiment, Aldad and colleagues reported behavioral changes, memory impairment, and altered excitatory synaptic transmission after in-utero exposure to the tested cellular-phone radiation conditions. An animal experiment does not establish that RF exposure causes a particular childhood diagnosis. It does establish a developmental research question that deserves serious attention and resources. 20

Combined exposures deserve the same seriousness. A 2026 experiment in mouse embryonic fibroblasts found that 1,800 MHz RF exposure enhanced DNA damage from hexavalent chromium under the tested conditions. RF alone did not produce detectable DNA damage in that experiment, and the same enhancement was not found with the other tested agents. 21

That specificity is exactly why mixture research matters. A result from one exposure tested alone cannot settle every question about its interaction with another exposure. Nor does one positive combination establish that every combination is harmful. Test the combinations, identify the susceptible processes, and use the findings to prevent unnecessary exposure.

The commission also raises concerns involving gene expression, blood-brain-barrier function, neurological symptoms, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the environment supporting children’s health. 1 These concerns span different evidence types. Our policy response should ensure that researchers can investigate them and that people reporting symptoms receive respectful care and practical access to lower-exposure spaces.

Schools should protect sleep, physical activity, social development, and visual health alongside exposure reduction. A wired connection cannot correct excessive nighttime screen use or replace outdoor play. Public-health leadership must address the whole environment in which children grow.

The electrical environment remains relevant after Wi-Fi is removed

Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields are a separate exposure category. Their sources include electrical power infrastructure and equipment. Replacing an RF connection does not remove those sources.

A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis in PLOS ONE reported an association between higher ELF magnetic-field exposure and childhood leukemia. At the 0.4 microtesla exposure category, the pooled odds ratio was 1.72, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.25–2.35. That field strength equals 4 milligauss. Results for childhood brain tumors were not statistically significant. 11

Those numbers describe an epidemiological association. They do not establish a sharp boundary at which exposure becomes safe or harmful, and the estimate changed in sensitivity analyses. The finding nevertheless supplies a concrete reason to include magnetic-field assessment in school planning.

Our proposed approach is to inspect the actual electrical environment: locate equipment thoughtfully, correct wiring defects through qualified professionals, assess occupied areas under representative loads, and verify the results after changes. A wired classroom should be evaluated as a complete installation.

This also matters when communities plan new electrical infrastructure. ICBE-EMF explicitly raises AI-related growth in data centers and their supporting power infrastructure. 1 A child’s personal screen-time total cannot describe nearby substations and transmission equipment. Evaluate the actual installation and occupied spaces. The label “AI infrastructure” does not discharge the duty to protect the surrounding community.

The same principle extends to environmental stewardship. Development decisions should examine effects on the ecosystems children depend on. RF Safe calls for environmental assessments that address wildlife and habitat alongside human exposure; a device’s human compliance test cannot answer every ecological question.

Exposure limits and the question they are designed to answer

ICBE-EMF challenges whether existing limits adequately address chronic exposure and childhood vulnerability. 1 ICNIRP’s revised 2020 RF guidelines discuss children, but their protection framework remains strongly shaped by established thermal effects in RF communications bands. The issue is whether that framework provides the protection children need across development and long-term exposure. 12

The consequential dispute concerns the sufficiency of that framework. What evidence should trigger additional protection? How should chronic animal findings be incorporated? Which exposure metrics best represent real use? What protection is appropriate while uncertainties remain?

Héroux, Moskowitz, and other ICBE-EMF authors addressed both assessment and engineering in a 2023 paper. They proposed changes including reducing emissions during body contact, improving antenna radiation patterns, and reducing transmission duration or integrated exposure through protocol changes. 13

That engineering emphasis deserves wider attention. Exposure reduction can be a design objective, expressed in specifications and verified in testing. Regulators can require better evidence, and manufacturers can improve devices while that evidence develops.

Legal exposure and a comprehensive demonstration of long-term safety are different claims. A compliance certificate should identify the limits and test conditions it covers. Public communication should be equally specific.

A school transition plan with measurable results

RF Safe proposes turning the commission’s recommendations into a funded sequence that school communities can review.

First, inventory the campus. Record the devices, communications systems, electrical equipment, occupied spaces, and nearby infrastructure. Document what each system actually does and which educational or operational requirement it serves.

Second, establish a wired foundation. Install sufficient network connections for instructional spaces, provide compatible devices and adapters, and train staff. Verify that wireless radios are disabled where the system is intended to operate through cables. Provide reliable classroom communications and preserve accessibility and emergency functions throughout the transition.

Third, measure before and after changes. Reports should identify instruments, frequencies assessed, locations, operating conditions, and measurement limitations. Publish understandable results with the corrective actions taken. A single reading from an empty classroom cannot describe every condition during a busy school day.

Fourth, make exposure reduction part of future purchasing. Require usable controls, serviceable equipment, transparent emissions information, and independent acceptance testing. Fund the transition so that lower-income districts can participate fully.

Fifth, evaluate proposed towers and electrical infrastructure before committing a school community to their location. ICBE-EMF discusses research recommending tower setbacks of at least 500 meters, approximately 1,640 feet, while stressing that distance alone cannot guarantee safety. Its recommendation calls for site-specific assessment. 1

RF Safe’s proposed policy should preserve that principle. Setbacks can provide a planning floor, and measured exposure, equipment characteristics, terrain, and occupancy should inform the wider assessment. A distance on a map must not become a substitute for evaluating the installation.

ICBE-EMF: why does this statement stop at Ethernet?

ICBE-EMF deserves credit for speaking clearly about prevention. Its call for wired Ethernet is a strong foundation. It should now explain why this children’s statement does not also call for Li-Fi adoption and mandates.

ICBE-EMF, publish a position on optical wireless communication for schools. State the requirements that Li-Fi systems must meet. Call for funded early adoption and a timetable for replacing avoidable RF connections.

We are asking the commission to recommend a technology category and a public-health transition. It can define independent evaluation requirements without promoting a particular manufacturer. It can advocate adoption without claiming that every product carrying the Li-Fi label has already earned approval.

If particular evidence or engineering questions prevent a recommendation, identify them publicly and specify how they can be resolved. Give schools, researchers, and manufacturers a concrete program of work. Silence on the transition leaves decision-makers with warnings and an incomplete implementation agenda.

Fiber and Ethernet already supply a powerful foundation. Li-Fi adds an optical option for connections that need mobility. IEEE’s light-communication work established a framework for carrying wireless-network communications through light, and IEEE 802.11bb-2023 is part of that standards history. 14

Ethernet can connect an optical access point. The final connection to a compatible device can then use light. A well-designed system must provide the intended optical path in both directions and document any RF fallback. That gives schools a concrete architecture to evaluate, purchase, and improve.

This proposal extends the statement’s recommendations. The commission should answer it directly.

Early adopters are how adoption reaches scale

Waiting for universal adoption before supporting adoption creates a self-defeating policy. Somebody must place the first public orders, fund the installations, train staff, and publish the results.

Schools and public buildings can become those early adopters through funded programs with independent evaluation. Start with appropriate sites, verify performance and exposure reduction, publish lessons, and use the results to improve the next procurement round.

Public demand should be durable enough for suppliers to plan around. Require interoperability, repairability, support commitments, and independent testing. Build competitive procurement that supports multiple suppliers rather than tying a district’s future to a single vendor.

ICBE-EMF can help create that demand. A scientific commission’s recommendation can give a school board the rationale to request funding, give a public agency the basis for a pilot, and give manufacturers a clearer target for development. That is the leadership RF Safe is asking for.

Mandate Li-Fi as part of a fiber-and-Ethernet transition

RF Safe calls for a Li-Fi mandate within a broader program of reducing avoidable RF exposure in schools and other public buildings.

The architectural order is practical: fiber carries the building’s backbone traffic; Ethernet connects fixed equipment and optical access points; qualified Li-Fi connections serve suitable mobility needs.

The mandate should define a performance requirement and a funded implementation schedule. New construction and major renovations should provide the wired infrastructure first. Supported optical connections should then replace routine RF links in suitable spaces, with compatibility, coverage, accessibility, and reliability demonstrated before acceptance.

ICBE-EMF should put its scientific weight behind that transition and define the protection requirements it expects installations to meet.

Make the engineering requirements explicit: optical eye and skin safety, appropriate lighting and flicker performance, electrical-emissions assessment, reliable service, and verified RF operating modes. Light is electromagnetic radiation too. Protecting children requires evaluating the chosen implementation, including its exposure characteristics, instead of treating the word “light” as a blanket safety certification.

A durable program needs interoperable equipment, multiple suppliers, maintenance commitments, and replacement plans. Districts should be able to adopt proven wired improvements immediately while optical deployments pass their technical and operational acceptance requirements.

The mandate’s purpose is concrete: make lower-RF connectivity an infrastructure obligation, backed by funding and verification.

A Clean Ether Act should make prevention enforceable

RF Safe proposes a Clean Ether Act to turn these goals into enforceable public policy. “Clean Ether Act” here names our proposed legislative framework.

Its central commitments should be:

1. Mandate fiber, Ethernet, and qualified Li-Fi deployment in publicly funded buildings, prioritizing schools and childcare facilities, with deadlines, transition funding, and narrowly defined provisions for essential functions.
2. Require comprehensive exposure assessment, addressing RF and low-frequency electrical sources separately and evaluating the conditions people actually experience.
3. Establish independent testing and surveillance, including realistic device-use configurations, transparent reporting, and correction of deficiencies.
4. Fund long-term research and replication, with safeguards against conflicts of interest and publicly accessible methods and findings.
5. Reform infrastructure siting law, allowing meaningful consideration of health evidence and protecting children’s occupied environments.
6. Require periodic standards review, with a published response to significant new evidence and clear responsibility for implementation.

In the United States, that siting reform must address the RF provision associated with Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), it limits state and local regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of compliant personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions. RF Safe calls for repeal of that restriction so communities can meaningfully consider the health issues at stake. 15

Congress should also demand effective implementation of the federal electronic-product radiation-control program. Current law directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish and carry out a program addressing unnecessary electronic-product radiation exposure, including research and the development of performance standards. That existing authority belongs alongside any new legislative initiative. 16

Children’s protection should be reflected in budgets, building plans, test procedures, and enforceable responsibilities. Parents should be able to see what their schools measured, what they changed, and whether the promised improvements were delivered.

ICBE-EMF: call for Li-Fi mandates. Help establish the early-adoption programs. Define the requirements. Advocate the funding. Put a timetable behind the transition.

RF Safe stands with the commission’s demand to protect children, and we are pressing it to carry that demand into technology policy. We must mandate Li-Fi within a fiber-and-Ethernet infrastructure strategy, reduce avoidable exposures, and enact a Clean Ether Act that makes prevention a duty.

Our measure of success is healthy children, informed parents, and schools designed to support biological health as seriously as they support digital connectivity.

Protect the children. Fund the transition. Mandate Li-Fi. Enact a Clean Ether Act.

Sources

1. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Safeguarding Children’s Health in the Digital Age: Addressing Screen Time, Wireless Radiation, and Extremely Low Frequency Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposures. Published September 8, 2026; updated September 9, 2026. Position statement PDF.
2. Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 2016. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341.
3. National Toxicology Program. Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation. Official account of the 2018 studies, subsequent findings, and interpretive limitations; accessed September 10, 2026.
4. Falcioni L et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.
5. Mevissen M et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environment International, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482.
6. Choi YJ, Moskowitz JM, Myung SK, Lee YR, Hong YC. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218079.
7. National Cancer Institute. Cell Phones and Cancer Risk. Accessed September 10, 2026.
8. Fernández C, de Salles AA, Sears ME, Morris RD, Davis DL. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013.
9. Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Röösli M. A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2018. DOI: 10.1289/EHP2427.
10. Bijlsma N, Conduit R, Kennedy G, Cohen M. Does radiofrequency radiation impact sleep? A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study. Frontiers in Public Health, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1481537.
11. Seomun G, Lee J, Park J. Exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and childhood cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, May 14, 2021.
12. ICNIRP. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 2020.
13. Héroux P et al., on behalf of ICBE-EMF. Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20075398.
14. IEEE 802.11 Working Group. Light Communication Task Group and Official Project Timelines. Accessed September 10, 2026.
15. U.S. Code. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Current text accessed September 10, 2026.
16. U.S. Code. 21 U.S.C. § 360ii, Program of control. Current text accessed September 10, 2026.
17. Yakymenko I et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2016. DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.
18. Martel J et al. Influence of electromagnetic fields on the circadian rhythm: Implications for human health and disease. Biomedical Journal, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.bj.2023.01.003.
19. Assefa EM, Abdu SM. Histopathologic effects of mobile phone radiation exposure on the testes and sperm parameters: a systematic literature review of animal studies. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2024.1515166.
20. Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 MHz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Scientific Reports, 2012. DOI: 10.1038/srep00312.
21. Zhu Y et al. Exposure to hexavalent chromium and 1800 MHz electromagnetic radiation can synergistically induce intracellular DNA damage in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2026.153360.