EMF Research Quality and Quantity

Over the last 50 years, an enormous body of research has been created concerning electromagnetic radiation (both low-frequency and radio-frequency) and its effect on human and animal health.

A good place to explore this research is at the Powerwatch UK website which lists 1479 research papers (at the time of writing) on the subject of electromagnetic radiation and its biological effects.

Currently 924 of them (62.5%) reported biological effects associated with electromagnetic radiation, according to Powerwatch’s own analysis.

Some of these studies are epidemiological or statistical. In these, even though higher EMFs were often associated with an increased occurrence of cancer or other health problems, the actual causes of  those health problems cannot be known with certainty.

Other papers reported on experiments where they applied an EMF and then observed the effects on human cells, or tissue, or in various animals.

In well-conducted experiments, you can be sure (within limits of probability) that the effects the experimenters observed were actually caused by the electromagnetic radiation, and not by something else.

Electromagnetic Phenomenon

EMF Pollution Not Safe

Taking the total weight of evidence into account, I think the most logical conclusion is that

EMF exposure increases your risk for ill health.

Many authoritative organisations are not prepared to go that far. Well, not yet. They do creep towards it, but at a rate slow enough to ensure that they never actually arrive.

To see some justification for our conclusion, see What EMF does to your body.

Here is a video that may challenge your perceptions about electromagnetic radiation:

Any reasonable person would agree that the available evidence does NOT prove that electromagnetic radiation is SAFE. And if we are not sure that a technology is safe, should we allow corporations to exploit it – and thereby us?

Of course, some studies of EMF health effects have failed to produce positive results (including 555 from the above sample).

One reason is that serious diseases usually take many years to manifest – up to 10 or 20 years in the case of cancer – and most research studies have a much shorter time horizon. No one wants to wait 10 years for a result, let alone 20. (Also, no one wants to fund expensive long-term studies!)

Then there is the conspiracy theory which goes something like this:

Conspiracy Theory:

  • Large and powerful industries benefit hugely from the technologies that cause EMF pollution.
  • They are keen to avoid exposing the dangers of EMF, which could jeopardise their profits and alienate their shareholders.
  • One way to reassure the public about EMF health dangers is to sponsor research which is designed NOT to find any.
    • You look for something that you know exists, but you look for it in the wrong place. Then you announce that it could not be found! (There are endless variations on this one.)
  • If you review all the research into EMF health effects, the studies that found none were usually sponsored by the relevant industry.
    • These negative studies usefully dilute the impact of those where health effects were found.
    • Negative studies also convince some people that EMF health effects exist only in the minds of the misguided anti-EMF lobby.
  • Industry provides generous funding to ensure that negative studies are given the most publicity.
  • On the other hand, scientists who sincerely want to find and explain health effects from EMF pollution may have a difficult job getting grants (from those same industries) for their projects, and they may also face further obstacles in getting their (bad-news) research out into the public arena.
  • Publishing even one study showing that EMF creates damaging health effects may affect a researcher’s chances of obtaining funding for any future research in this field.

Do you like conspiracy theories? I usually avoid them, but I am warming to this one. Could be a sign of my increasing paranoia.


Most conspiracy theories are daft! Don’t you agree?

You may also be interested in these articles: