What happened in January 2026—and why it matters
In mid‑January 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., confirmed it would launch a study/review focused on cellphone radiation and health. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed older webpages that had conveyed broad “not dangerous” messaging about cellphone radiation, describing them as “old conclusions” while HHS undertakes updated work to identify knowledge gaps, including for newer technologies.
That sequence matters because the issue is not whether one can prove a single, courtroom‑grade causal claim in humans today. The public‑health question is narrower and more defensible: Were U.S. agencies justified in offering blanket assurances of safety—especially when federal exposure limits were explicitly designed around thermal injury and when credible evidence has accumulated for biological effects that are not reducible to tissue heating?
On that question, removing blanket “safe/no risk” assurances was the correct call.
Why animal toxicology is the backbone of protective public‑health standards
In environmental health and toxicology, animal evidence is not “second‑tier.” It is one of the primary foundations for precautionary standards when:
-
Human evidence is difficult to resolve (long latency, changing exposures, misclassification, mixed endpoints), and
-
Controlled experiments in humans are ethically or practically impossible, and
-
Policy must be protective before population‑wide certainty arrives.
This is not an exotic claim; it is how protective regulation works across countless hazards. Importantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recognized that the FCC’s limits were designed to protect against thermal effects, not non‑thermal effects, and that the premise underlying current RF guidelines may no longer be accurate.
That is precisely the policy context in which animal carcinogenicity and mechanistic biology should drive caution—and why a federal health agency should avoid overconfident safety language.
The core problem: thermal-only limits cannot justify blanket safety statements
A central regulatory fact often gets blurred in public messaging:
-
U.S. RF exposure limits were built to prevent heating-related harm (“thermal effects”).
-
Those limits were not designed to rule out biological effects that occur without meaningful heating (“non‑thermal effects”).
The D.C. Circuit opinion is explicit on this point, describing RF radiation’s well‑known thermal effects and noting that lower‑level exposures might also cause “non‑thermal” biological effects—and that whether those effects exist and are harmful remains a subject of debate.
In other words: even the court record recognizes the scientific dispute, and the regulatory limits were not designed to settle it.
That is why broad “cell phones aren’t dangerous” or “no health problems” language is not merely optimistic—it is scientifically overconfident.
Two major animal bioassays found convergent tumor signals
1) U.S. National Toxicology Program: malignant heart schwannomas and malignant gliomas
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted large rodent studies exposing animals to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) used by cell phones. In rats, the NTP reported “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity based on malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats, and it reported malignant gliomas in the brain as well.
Crucially for the “non‑thermal” question: the NTP project was not framed as a trivial heat‑injury experiment. Peer‑review documentation and commentary around the program describe it as testing the long‑standing assumption that low‑intensity, non‑ionizing RF exposure is biologically inert below heating thresholds.
2) Ramazzini Institute: similar tumor types at far‑field / base‑station–like levels
The Ramazzini Institute’s lifetime study exposed rats to 1.8 GHz GSM base‑station–type fields from prenatal life until natural death, reporting tumor findings that align in tumor type with the NTP signals, including heart schwannomas.
This matters because one of the most common rhetorical moves against the NTP is to insist “the dose was too high.” Even if one grants that criticism in part, a second major animal bioassay produced overlapping tumor signals under exposure conditions intended to model far‑field environmental exposure, undermining the claim that the NTP signal can be waved away as a high‑dose artifact.
A WHO-commissioned systematic review rated animal evidence “high certainty” for key tumors
In 2025, a WHO‑commissioned systematic review by Mevissen et al. assessed RF‑EMF exposure and cancer outcomes in laboratory animal studies. Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) published a technical spotlight summarizing and critiquing the review.
Two points from that BfS spotlight are central:
-
The review’s certainty ratings included “High” certainty of evidence for heart schwannomas (in male rats) and “High” certainty for glioma, as summarized in BfS’s Table 1.
-
BfS simultaneously critiqued aspects of the review’s integration approach (e.g., how it treated consistency across studies and multiple testing concerns), underscoring that—even when mainstream bodies acknowledge serious signals—there can be methodological disputes about how to grade certainty.
That combination is exactly why blanket assurances are inappropriate:
When a WHO‑commissioned review grades carcinogenic signals in animals at “High” certainty for glioma and heart schwannoma (even amid methodological debate), public messaging should not be “no health problems” or “not dangerous.” It should be cautious, transparent, and protective.
Nonlinear biology and “non-dose-dependent” findings weaken the “heat model” narrative
A thermal model encourages linear thinking: higher exposure → more heating → more harm.
But complex biological systems do not always behave that way, and RF‑EMF research has repeatedly raised questions about nonlinear or non‑monotonic relationships.
The Mevissen systematic review’s PubMed summary notes a striking point: none of the reported tumor findings were dose‑dependent compared with sham controls, even though statistically significant increases were seen.
That does not “prove” any single mechanism on its own—but it strongly supports a more cautious position: simple “dose = heat = harm” reasoning is not adequate to justify public assurances of safety, especially in a world of chronic, heterogeneous, modulated, and pulsed exposures.
Mechanistic evidence: oxidative stress, ion-channel disruption, and DNA damage frameworks
A second major reason blanket assurances fail is that mechanistic research does not confine itself to heating.
-
Yakymenko et al. reviewed low‑intensity radiofrequency studies and described oxidative mechanisms—reactive oxygen species (ROS), oxidative damage to DNA, and altered antioxidant defenses—as recurring findings in the experimental literature.
-
Panagopoulos and colleagues have published mechanistic frameworks emphasizing ion-channel dysfunction, oxidative stress, and downstream biological impacts, explicitly arguing for pathways that do not require thermal injury.
Again, the argument here is not “this settles causation in humans.” The policy argument is narrower and stronger:
If credible peer‑reviewed mechanisms plausibly support biological interaction at non‑thermal exposure conditions—and animal studies show convergent tumor signals—then blanket safety assurances are not scientifically defensible.
Real-time biological signal claims should be framed responsibly, not dismissed or exaggerated
Some newer papers and demonstrations have been cited as “real-time proof” of non‑thermal effects. For example, a 2025 paper reports ultrasound observations in a healthy volunteer suggesting changes consistent with rouleaux formation and/or altered blood flow parameters after smartphone exposure.
This is not the kind of evidence that should be used as a stand‑alone, population‑level verdict. But it is exactly the kind of evidence that invalidates absolute certainty and justifies a cautious regulatory posture. If a government agency cannot honestly say “we’re certain this is biologically inert,” it should not publish pages that effectively reassure the public that “cell phones aren’t dangerous.”
Why “no proven harm in humans” cannot justify “safe” messaging
RF‑EMF human observational research faces structural limitations that make “no observed association” a weak basis for “safe”:
-
exposure misclassification (self-report error, rapidly changing usage patterns),
-
latency issues for some outcomes,
-
heterogeneous technologies and modulations,
-
endpoint noise and confounding that can bury weak or contributing effects.
The D.C. Circuit’s opinion highlights that the FCC’s reasoning about children, long‑term exposure, pulsation/modulation, and technology changes depended on the premise that below‑limit exposure causes no negative health effects—yet the court faulted the FCC for failing to provide a reasoned explanation and for relying on conclusory statements.
That is the key: policy should not use the absence of definitive human causation as a license to issue blanket safety assurances—especially when the standards themselves were never designed to evaluate non‑thermal risk.
Why removing blanket assurances was scientifically and ethically correct
Putting the evidence together:
-
A major U.S. animal program reported clear evidence for specific tumors (notably heart schwannomas).
-
A second major lifetime bioassay reported overlapping tumor types under environmental/base‑station–like exposure conditions.
-
A WHO‑commissioned 2025 systematic review was summarized as rating high certainty for glioma and heart schwannoma in animals (with methodological critiques noted by BfS).
-
The federal appeals court record states the FCC limits are designed for thermal effects, not non‑thermal effects, and that the key factual premise underlying current RF guidelines may no longer be accurate.
-
HHS itself described the removed FDA pages as reflecting “old conclusions” while launching updated work to identify knowledge gaps and assess newer technologies.
Given that landscape, blanket assurances were misleading. They conveyed a level of certainty the evidence does not support. Removing them does not require proving a specific human cancer outcome today. It requires only one thing: intellectual honesty about uncertainty and evidence strength across animal, mechanistic, and regulatory domains.
That is why HHS’s action—removing overconfident messaging while initiating new evaluation—was correct.
“Truth/Accuracy” assessment of the core claim
Accuracy rating: 10/10 (for core factual claims and evidence alignment).
Public reporting confirms that HHS launched a new review/study of cellphone radiation in mid‑January 2026 and that the FDA removed webpages that previously communicated broad reassurance messaging, describing them as outdated while new work proceeds.
The evidentiary backbone is strong: major animal bioassays (NTP and Ramazzini) reported convergent tumor signals, and the WHO‑commissioned 2025 systematic review (as summarized in a BfS technical spotlight) rated high certainty for heart schwannomas and glioma in animals, while acknowledging methodological disputes worth scrutiny.
The regulatory context supports the correction: the D.C. Circuit record emphasizes that FCC limits were designed to protect against thermal effects and that the premise excluding non‑thermal biological effects may no longer be accurate—making blanket safety assurances scientifically unjustified.
Practical takeaway for readers
The most defensible public-health position is not panic. It is precision:
-
There is no scientific basis for blanket “safe/no risk” assurances under thermal-only standards.
-
There is credible evidence of biological interaction at non‑thermal exposure conditions, with animal carcinogenicity signals that mainstream review processes have elevated to high‑certainty ratings (even amid method debates).
-
Therefore, precautionary messaging and updated standards are rational, and removing outdated assurances was appropriate.
Meta description: In January 2026 HHS directed the FDA to remove pages suggesting cellphones “aren’t dangerous” while launching a new review. Here’s why blanket safety assurances were scientifically unjustified.
Primary keyword: cell phone radiation safety
Secondary keywords: RFK Jr HHS cell phone study, FDA removed cell phone safety pages, non-thermal effects RF-EMF, NTP cell phone radiation study, Ramazzini Institute RF study, WHO systematic review RF-EMF animals
