Exposure limits & oversight

Previous assessments of the health effects of EMF/RF have been based upon the assumption that non-ionizing and non-thermal radiation is not harmful to biological systems. This is a false assumption however. Allow me to quote Paul Héroux: "What escaped the attention of many is that life's metabolism and design make it much more vulnerable to NTER [non-thermal electromagnetic radiation] than inert matter. Living tissue has mostly adapted to the Sun's radiation as well as to the static field of the Earth only through the course of 3.5 billion years of evolution. ... But the levels of NTER from wireless techniques that we are experiencing now are totally unprecedented, and living systems have no defense against this new arrival." This is from his May 2025 Heliyon paper: "The collision between wireless and biology" https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(25)00647-4 This diagram https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3/asset/68f73d5d-0e58-49c6-af8f-99d0e7f7869d/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg from a 2018 Priyanka Bandaraa and David O Carpenter paper illustrates how unprecedented our exposures, particularly in the gigahertz range, have become. I am involved with South West Ohio for Responsible Technology (SWORT), which has been informing the public and elected officials about the hazards of 5G, smart meters, WiFi, and the like. We welcome HHS examining these technologies with greater detail, particularly focusing on the ill -or possibly beneficial- effects of certain frequency ranges upon biological systems.

i have a nurse friend that has been diagnosed with AlS and has to be in a wheelchair. Stetzerizer readings are normal in her outlets. Her home was built with digital meter placed right in her patio door entry at eye level so that every time she walks in and out of her doorway she gets emf'd. Using a meterk meter inside the house wall with the meter on the backside have unsafe levels reading high from the digital meter. The builder ran the digital meter connection under a concrete porch and maybe why her outlets read normal. But on wall inside and probably down the the sides of her house outside where beam is communicating with neighboring meters high emf. The husband and wife neighbors have passed away. Her electric bills are over $400.00. There is a major problem where they are installing digital meters. There needs to be a safer distance away from high traffic areas like doorways. My daughter has 2 smart meters outside on wall shared with the bedroom. But on the wall of the room where two children sleep in a bed on that same wall with the meters. Not enough distance to be safe. Electric companies are charging lot extra to allow opt outs. This lady is dying and living with what is probably killing her. Even if she does opt out from digital meter she still has that beam from neighboring meters running down the side of her house. need to not charge extra to have safe installation. she's paying $400 a month now and says she can't afford more. Something so wrong. She's a lovely person and doesn't deserve having to live in a toxic house due to a meter location.

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters…)WiFi and 4G/LTE 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years):5 years 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced:tinnitus 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects:yes. since moved office to more exposed place in city, effects sit in after few weeks. not a coincidence 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis?it's not measurable. but correlation is evident 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects?i go more often in Nature, far from sources. after 2~3 days effects disappear almost completely 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information:no Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation or EMF's:no. the only solution would be to completely shut down all WiFi+4G+ devices. I think mankind did without it for millenia, we don't really need it. B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects:WiFi in both bands 2.4 and 5GHz, 4G/LTE in 1800 1900 2100 and 2600 MHz bands. Sometimes bluetooth when very close for long time B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you:low bands (800 and 900 MHz) B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed:TV and A/C remote controls, remote car open key and door opener (in the 433MHz band) B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy):none B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless:none, my health is perfect except when exposed to EMF B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant:none B3. For each subquestion please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure:none, found no working solution to tolerate EMF. only way out is to stay in a remote location where signal is low. B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help:none B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful):none B3d. Treatments that had no effect:being tired or stressed or having much coffée enhances sensitivity B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse:45-54 B4. What is your age range?45-54 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields?i hear it, i feel it in my ears/brain. B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields?southern switzerland

I urge the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to independently review the scientific evidence on radiofrequency (RF) exposure from cell towers, particularly potential non-thermal effects, long-term exposure, and antenna placement near homes, bedrooms, schools, and childcare facilities. Documented premature tower activation Official City of San Mateo correspondence states that Crown Castle energized 19 wireless facilities before receiving required final city inspections and approvals. The City demanded de-energization and identified outstanding construction, electrical, permitting, and compliance issues. In subsequent correspondence following a June 26, 2024 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Linh P. Nguyen reported that only seven of the 19 sites had received final inspections and approval, two had been de-energized for necessary work, and 10 remained essentially unchanged. The City also discovered additional facilities energized without its knowledge, including one with an expired permit and no final inspection or approval. The City warned of further enforcement action. These letters document serious compliance and oversight concerns. While they do not establish health effects, they raise questions about transparency, enforcement, and public safety. Community reports and my experience During this period, members of our community group began reporting headaches, tinnitus, insomnia, anxiety, feeling unwell, and feeling unusually “off.” Some asked whether the towers had been activated. At the time, neither I nor the residents contacting us knew they were operating. After making inquiries, we learned of the City's findings regarding Crown Castle's premature activation of multiple facilities. I cannot prove that RF exposure caused these symptoms, but the timing and similarity of the reports warrant investigation. Around the same time, I developed severe insomnia for the first time in my life. Suddenly, I struggled to sleep, relied on sleep aids, and often awoke feeling unrefreshed. The timing was striking. I offer this experience not as proof of causation, but as a significant health change coinciding with the reported tower activation. I ask that it be considered alongside objective exposure measurements and scientific evidence. Request for scientific review I urge HHS to review the full scientific literature, including studies reporting effects, systematic reviews, and unresolved research questions. Please examine: * Sleep disruption, headaches, tinnitus, neurological function, cognition, and other reported symptoms. * Proposed non-thermal mechanisms, including oxidative stress and cellular signaling, and whether findings are reproducible at real-world exposure levels. * Long-term and cumulative exposure from multiple antennas and wireless sources. * Frequency, modulation, pulsing, duty cycle, beamforming, signal strength, and exposure duration. * Exposure in bedrooms, homes, schools, and childcare facilities, including overnight exposure and potential vulnerabilities of children. * Whether current standards adequately address real-world exposure and evolving scientific evidence. Compliance with outdated existing RF limits should not end scientific inquiry. Agencies should distinguish established adverse health effects from biological findings, plausible hypotheses, and unsupported claims. I respectfully request that the agencies: 1. Review the City's correspondence and examine premature operation before final inspections and approvals. 2. Support independent RF measurements near affected facilities, including in nearby homes, bedrooms, and schools where appropriate. 3. Commission independent research on non-thermal effects, sleep, neurological outcomes, and long-term exposure. 5. Establish appropriate ways to document community health reports and investigate exposure changes. 6. Evaluate reasonable exposure-reduction measures and alternative siting near homes 7. Clarify federal and local responsibilities for permitting, notification, compliance, and enforcement. Conclusion I am not asking agencies to presume that cell towers caused these symptoms. I am asking them to take documented regulatory failures, residents' experiences, and unresolved scientific questions seriously. The City's correspondence documents facilities energized before final approval and additional facilities reportedly activated without its knowledge. During the same general period, residents reported unusual symptoms and I experienced unprecedented insomnia. These circumstances warrant transparent investigation, reliable exposure measurements, and rigorous scientific review. Please evaluate whether current standards adequately reflect the evidence and take appropriate action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and public health protection. Thank you for considering my comment. Attachments: Official City of San Mateo correspondence regarding Crown Castle's premature activation and outstanding inspections and approvals.

This response addresses point 5 of the HHS remand in general, and 5.n in particular: “What scientific, technical, or regulatory changes by federal health agencies, if any, would improve the assessment, disclosure, and regulation of wireless radiation exposure.” Of particular concern are the assessments recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE ICES which underpin current exposure limits and will form the basis for future recommendations, as these assessments do not adequately meet reasonable scientific requirements, particularly when assessing studies investigating realistic RF-EMF exposures. Furthermore, these assessments apply requirements creating an in practice insurmountable evidentiary threshold before any non-thermal effect is given evidentiary weight, with serious consequences when setting exposure limits. This combination has so far produced conclusions of “no proof of risk”, which may be viewed as an artefact, i.e. produced by the assessments as such. Having studied this field for more than a decade, I have, together with scientific colleagues, developed a set of assessment criteria we consider necessary to improve the regulatory regime. These criteria aim to ensure that health risk assessments adequately consider studies investigating non-ionizing RF-EMF exposures below thermal levels, particularly under realistic exposure conditions, such as those encountered in everyday wireless communications. 1. Potential hazards and conclusions: Credible indications of potential harm must be identified and not disregarded due to a lack of full scientific certainty. All available evidence should be considered, and only excluded from the assessment based on scientific criteria such as serious flaws in the study design. 2. Distinguishing lack of evidence from evidence of no hazard: Insufficient evidence of harm must be distinguished from evidence that potential hazards are absent. 3. Transparent reporting: Evidentiary thresholds that reflect risk-management preferences must be explicitly identified. Risk-management preferences should not interfere with the risk-assessment. 4. Precautionary decisions: Credible indications of potential harm must be clearly reported, even when causation remains uncertain, to provide a scientific basis for considering preventive measures and their ethical, economic, and legal implications. 5. Exposure relevance and evidentiary weight: The relevance of the exposure characteristics to the target exposure scenario must be considered when assigning evidentiary weight to study findings, including findings of no effect. 6. Interpretation of exposure metrics: When assessing dose-response relationships, replication, and consistency across studies, the similarity of exposures must be evaluated using biologically relevant exposure characteristics, rather than assuming that similarity in a single exposure metric establishes biological equivalence. 7. Control-group exposure contrast: For hazard identification, exact dosimetry is not required, provided that it is reliably demonstrated that the exposed group is substantially more exposed than the control group. The exposure contrast must be sufficiently large and well characterized to support a meaningful comparison and minimize exposure misclassification. Assessments underlying the exposure limits recommended by ICNIRP and IEEE ICES do not fulfill these requirements, especially as to their handling of scientific uncertainty and the evidentiary weight they assign to studies investigating realistic RF/EMF exposures, while systematically assigning most evidentiary weight to studies with unrealistic exposures. Such methodological concerns also apply to other RF/EMF assessments based on ICNIRP and ICES theoretical foundations and methodologies, e.g. the European Commission's SCHEER opinion on RF/EMF health risks and the WHO systematic reviews prepared for its RF/EMF Environmental Health Criteria monograph. I recommend that HHS evaluate all scientific assessments intended to inform RF/EMF risk-management decisions against the proposed criteria before relying on their conclusions. The attached document, authored by five researchers who have studied and published scientific papers and books on the foundations of the current regulatory regime, provides the detailed reasoning behind these recommendations. It also forward references to methodologies suitable for assessing RF-EMF effects on human health in ways consistent with standard risk assessments for potentially toxic agents, as well as scientific literature establishing the scientific rationale for the proposed criteria. Else K. Nordhagen, Ph.D., Univ.of Oslo, Norway

1. & 2. I am responding as: an individual 3a. Type of wireless or RF/EMF sources involved (e.g., mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters… ) WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, SMART METERS, WIFI, CELL TOWERS, CELL ANTENNAS 3b. Nature, duration, frequency, and approximate timing (e.g., years): TEN YEARS 3c. Adverse health effect(s) experienced: DIZZY EQUILIBRIUM, AGITATED, EXACERBATION OF CHRONIC ILLNESSES 3d. Time from first exposure to first appearance of adverse health effects; and did a change in exposure coincide with the onset of adverse effects: A FEW MINUTES 3e. Was medical evaluation or treatment sought? (Optionally:) Was there a diagnosis? YES 3f. Were steps taken to reduce or eliminate exposure, and were there subsequent changes in the effects? FELT MUCH HEALTHIER WHEN AVOIDED EXPOSURE TO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, CELL ANTENNAS, CELL TOWERS, SMART DEVICES, WIFI AND BLUE TOOTH DEVICES 3g. Any supporting documentation? This includes Scientific Reports, exposure measurements, or other relevant information: YES. TOOK METER READINGS THAT SHOWED THERE WERE UNSAFE TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF RADIATION AND EMF FIELDS Additional Details you would like to share about your experiences of adverse health effects you believe to be associated with exposure to wireless radiation CELL TOWERS, CELL ANTENNAS, WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, WIFI DEVICES MUST BE BANNED. AND REPLACED WITH WIRED, CORDED TECHNOLOGY AND COPPER LANDLINE PHONE EQUIPMENT SERVICES B1a. Sources you experience as causing you Adverse Effects: CELL TOWERS, CELL ANTENNAS, SMART METERS, WIRELESS MODEMS AND DEVICES, WIFI, BLUE TOOTH B1b. Sources you can sense, but don't seem to harm you: SOME CELL PHONES, B1c. Sources you can use without sensing or being harmed: NONE B1d. Sources that seem to provide benefit (i.e., electrotherapy): NOTHING BUT AVOIDANCE OF EXPOSURE B2a. Health conditions you think may contribute to your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless: EXPOSURE TO EMF FIELDS AND RADIATION WORSENS ALL HEALTH CONDITIONS AND ILLNESSES B2b. Health conditions you don't necessarily associate with your sensitivity to EMFs including wireless, but might be relevant: NONE B3. For each sub question please list up to 5 drugs or therapies or home remedies (if any) NONE B3a. That you recommend, as they helped you tolerate or recover from EMF exposure: SHIELDING OF EXPOSURE, AVOIDANCE OF EXPOSURE B3b. That you recommend, but you’re not positive that they help: SOME NOT ALL SHIELDING SOURCES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE TO STOP EMF FIELDS OR RADIATION LEVELS B3c. That helped you but you don’t recommend. (e.g., the benefit did not last long or the side effects were too harmful): THE ONLY EFFECTIVE TREATMENT WAS ELIMINATE EXPOSURE TO THE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY AND CELL TOWERS B3d. Treatments that had no effect: ONLY EFFECTIVE TREATMENT WAS TO AVOID EXPOSURE TO ALL WIRELESS, WIFI TECHNOLOGY, AND TO CELL TOWERS, CELL ANTENNAS, SMART METERS B3e. Treatments that made your sensitivity worse: ANY THAT INVOLVED USE OF WIRELESS, WIFI, BT TECHNOLOGY OR DEVICES B4. What is your age range? 60-75 B5. What year did you become aware of your sensitivity to wireless radiation or electromagnetic fields? IN 2015 B6. What country, state, province, or major city were you living in when you first noticed your sensitivity to wireless or electromagnetic fields? CALIF

Hello, I am reporting the health consequences that I have experienced as an average human, living an average life, with what I consider low to average daily radiation exposure. I use a smart phone, daily. I have a smart meter on my home from the local electric company. I drive down the streets, that are lined with cell phone towers. I use wifi in my home as an internet option. I use wifi at work. I use the 5G on my phone when wifi is not available. I use my smartphone mostly for texting and for searching the internet/ social media. I am a medical professional, but this is only a report of my personal life experiences. The first time I noted a distinct and obvious negative health consequence from using a cell phone was in 2017. I bought an iphone 10 as an upgrade to an iphone 6 and immediately noted that my hands felt like they were literally burning and on fire when I was holding and using the phone. I immediately contacted Apple, reported the burning sensation, and sent the phone back to them to confirm that it was not defective. They sent it back to me without confirming or denying there was a problem, but the symptoms continued, so I promptly sold the phone and went back to using my iphone 6. My hands continue to feel like they are burning after any prolonged use of a cell phone. I currently use an iphone 14 Pro. Any amount of time using the device causes my hands to tingle. The longer I hold this hand held device, the longer it takes for my burning sensation to recover. If I put it in airplane mode, I have minimal tingling in my hands, in comparison. If I completely stop using any handheld device, my hands stop tingling within a few hours, or a few days, depending on the recent duration of use. I have only had Apple cell phones in the past 20 years. The smart meter on my home has been giving me headaches. I have lived in a home with a smart meter attached to a main living room wall for the past 6 years and am increasingly sensitive to spending any time in that room. The closer I get in proximity to that meter, the worse I feel. I start to feel tense, uneasy, and agitated. I start to get a headache with any prolonged time spent in the living room. I also have the wifi router in close proximity to the smart meter, but I get the same symptoms when the wifi router is unplugged. I have called the electric company and asked for an analog meter that gets read in person, but they told me they do not offer that option. Cell phone towers give me headaches. They also cause a feeling of uneasiness and tension in my body. I was on my honeymoon with my husband, driving from Anchorage to Glennallen, Alaska and we saw an inviting valley where we decided to stop and take a hike. We didn’t note that it was at the base of a very large cell tower (I am assuming it was a cell phone tower but would have to confirm with whatever company owns it). As we climbed the hill I mentioned to my husband that I was getting a very severe headache. Headaches are not common for me in my normal daily life. I have experienced very few, and rarely over my 44 years, except when exposed to emfs. We looked up the hill and noted the giant tower and decided we better start walking away from it, assuming this was the cause. Sure enough, the headache decreased as we got further away. We were unable to enjoy that area and had to continue driving to find a safer alternative for our enjoyment of nature. I have noted similar headaches when driving past certain towers in our city of Anchorage, Alaska. There are certain areas that I try not to drive through because they give me headaches with any proximity. I also note headaches when I am driving on the highway and passing certain large towers (towers I assume are cell phone towers). The headache will start at low intensity and I will make note and look around. Almost always I am able to spot a tower right away. The headache increases in intensity as proximity increases, and decreases as I get further away. I could write much more about the health consequences of the continual broadcasting of radiation from cell towers, smart phones, smart meters, and wifi. I believe it is “cooking” us with high frequency vibration emissions like heat vibrations heat up a pan on the stove to cook food. I believe that we are all being cooked, as well as our pets, animals, plants, and all the molecules around us. Everything is being forced to speed up, causing a host of environmental problems. I have bought an emf reader and have been able to confirm the high frequency emissions from each of the hand held devices in our home, as well as the computers, the smart meter and the wifi router. The health consequences of having these frequencies continually bombarding us will only become more severe as a population in general if we don’t change the trajectory of limitless emfs in our immediate environments. Something must be done. Please, consider my testimony. It is honest and true.

I am a member of the public who has measured radiofrequency radiation using the Safe and Sound Pro II meter as well as electric and magnetic field strengths using the ME 3840B from Gigahertz Solutions. My family has been forced to move after developing symptoms including headaches, insomnia, nosebleeds, vomiting, muscle spasms, memory issues, and seizures from exposure to levels of non-ionizing radiation (RF-EMF peak 500,000+ μW/m2, magnetic field of 400+ nT) below the FCC limit that resolved with dramatically reduced exposure (RF-EMF peak less than 10 μW/m2, magnetic field less than 100 nT). Even childrens’ toys have wireless capabilities today. Establishing truly safe exposure levels is essential. I am writing to encourage you to consider the experiences of families like mine, the weight of scientific evidence already available, and the need for further study to protect the public health and to urge you to reconsider the current limits in light of the fact that they are not protective of human or environmental health. I appreciate your time and attention in reviewing the accompanying studies.

Hello my name Keith Berry im being and have been targeted individual for nearly 10 years by a unknown group/ that are using Emf/Rf (MAE) microwave auditory effect to induce sounds and Emf/rf force practice and entrainment test with with frequency attacks (Ahi) with auditory sound produce with rf modulation with nonstop frequency attacks that loop complex physiological torture to brainwashing torture and rf illness constantly relooping phrase doing complete minuplation constantly step by step done nonstop 24/7 ive had been tortured and retortured! These people doing this make it 100% clear about what there doing and keep telling me "not one gonna believe you" "we are gonna keep doing this!" This type of behavior is sick and disturbing and really should be looked into heavily there gotta be safeguards with the growing tech and uses such as this type of criminal behavior. Since this can attack anyone anytime would be great to know for a fact about this than not to, world would be a safer and more happier healthier place to be in without such hidden dangers that hide in shadows that need brought to light and understanding from which everyone needs. Swear on oath on what happening is fact im just begging for this to be taken carefully so all of us suffering from this can live our free healthy live without constant fear. I am willing to help in any questions and willing to fully cooperate with anyone that needs anything to what is stated heer. And apologize for my writing have beem hurt by this for to long just want this to end. Thank you for your time reading this hope this helps and please help.

I am submitting this comment to express my serious concern about the potential health effects of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, particularly for children, pregnant women, and future generations. We live in an increasingly connected world in which people are exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless devices, Wi-Fi networks, cell towers, and other wireless technologies. Children are growing up surrounded by these technologies and may experience exposure throughout their lives, beginning during pregnancy and continuing through childhood and adolescence. Given this increasing and prolonged exposure, I believe it is essential that the federal government carefully examine the potential short-term and long-term health consequences. **A particular concern is the potential relationship between EMF exposure and cancer.** The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. This classification does not establish that exposure causes cancer, but it does indicate that the scientific evidence warranted concern and further investigation. Research examining possible associations between radiofrequency exposure and brain tumors and other cancers deserves continued, independent scrutiny. I am especially concerned about children because their bodies and brains are still developing, and their lifetime exposure may be substantially longer than that of previous generations. It is important to determine whether existing exposure standards adequately account for children's developmental stages, potential differences in vulnerability, and the cumulative effects of exposure over many decades. The absence of conclusive evidence of harm should not be interpreted as definitive proof that all potential long-term risks have been ruled out. I respectfully urge the federal government to take the following actions: 1. **Conduct and support independent, long-term research** into possible associations between EMF exposure and cancer, neurological development, reproductive health, sleep, and other relevant health outcomes. 2. **Give special attention to children and pregnancy**, including studies that examine prenatal exposure, childhood exposure, and potential effects over the course of a person's lifetime. 3. **Reassess existing exposure standards** in light of the latest scientific evidence, including whether those standards adequately address prolonged exposure, real-world exposure patterns, and potentially vulnerable populations. 4. **Ensure transparency and independence in scientific reviews**, including disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, research limitations, and disagreements among qualified researchers. 5. **Provide clear, accessible public information** about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what practical measures individuals and families can take to reduce unnecessary exposure if they choose to do so. 6. **Apply a prudent, precautionary approach** while scientific uncertainties remain, particularly when considering children and other potentially vulnerable populations. Reasonable exposure-reduction measures should be considered where feasible without overstating what the evidence establishes. I recognize that wireless technologies provide significant benefits and that scientific research has not established that ordinary environmental EMF exposure causes every health condition of concern. Nevertheless, the widespread and increasing use of these technologies makes it especially important to investigate potential risks rigorously, independently, and continuously. Protecting public health requires more than waiting for absolute scientific certainty before investigating a possible risk. It requires a commitment to transparent research, careful evaluation of emerging evidence, and appropriate safeguards when the health of children and future generations may be at stake. I urge the relevant federal agencies to give this issue serious consideration, ensure that the scientific evidence is evaluated comprehensively, and prioritize the long-term health and well-being of the public. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this comment and for considering these concerns. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): The 2011 classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). This is a hazard classification, not a conclusion that everyday exposure necessarily causes cancer. National Cancer Institute: Its overview of cell phones and cancer discusses epidemiological research, biological evidence, and the limitations of existing studies. World Health Organization (WHO): Its research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields addresses the evidence on possible health effects and the need for continued evaluation.