A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessing in vivo, in vitro, and epidemiological data

Abstract

Category: Public Health, Environmental Health, Epidemiology Tags: RF-EMF, genotoxicity, DNA damage, epidemiology, wireless technology, cancer risk, precautionary principle DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613353 URL: frontiersin.org Overview Many studies have examined the genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure (3 kHz-300 GHz), using diverse parameters and yielding inconsistent results. A systematic mapping of research is needed to identify patterns and guide policy and further study. Methods This evidence mapping followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines, using a comprehensive database search with strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data from over 500 studies were synthesized—spanning in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological research—using tables, graphs, heatmaps and analysis of study variables like organism, exposure, biological marker, RF-EMF types, and funding source. Study quality was assessed for potential bias. Findings - Of 500+ studies: 53% were in vitro, 37% in vivo, and 10% epidemiological. - In vivo and epidemiological studies showed a higher proportion of significant DNA damage effects than in vitro studies. - DNA base damage was most common, especially with GSM talk-mode, pulsed signals, real devices, and long exposure durations. - A U-shaped dose-response was identified, hinting at adaptive cellular responses and increased free radical production as mechanisms of genotoxicity. - Funding source was a stronger predictor of experimental outcome than study quality. - 58% of studies observing DNA damage used exposures below ICNIRP limits, with some findings at intensities over 600,000 times lower than those limits. Policy and Practice Implications RF-EMF exposures—even at low intensities and over medium to long durations—induce genetic damage through non-thermal effects like free radical production and oxidative stress. This can have persistent and broad health and ecological impacts. Specific risk signals include: - Increased cancer susceptibility and reproductive harm. - DNA damage in brain cells, linked to neurological diseases and tumors in animal models. - Potential harm to wildlife, plants, insects, and non-mammalian organisms. Regulations and Recommendations - Current ICNIRP RF-EMF exposure guidelines are based primarily on thermal effects and may not protect against non-thermal genotoxicity. - Medium/long-term low-level exposures even at intensities not expected to induce measurable heating are strongly linked to DNA damage in humans and animals. - Precautionary measures—such as ALARA, optimized device designs, public information campaigns, mandatory labeling, and independent oversight—are recommended. - Individual actions (reducing wireless usage, preferring wired connections, antioxidants) are helpful but no substitute for regulatory standards and industry accountability. Targeted Actions Needed - Standardization of research methodologies. - Prioritization of long-term and low-intensity exposure studies. - Inclusion of new technologies and frequencies (e.g., 5G) in research. - Focus on environmental, ecological, and human health impact studies. - Independent research funding and transparency in affiliations. - Updating regulatory standards to address non-thermal effects and chronic long-term exposures. Conclusion There is robust evidence that RF-EMF exposures can result in DNA damage at levels far below current safety limits, especially with real-world signals and over long durations. This genotoxic risk could lead to greater cancer risk, neurological disorders, and harm to reproductive and environmental health. Adoption of stronger precautionary measures is recommended until accurate safety thresholds can be established.

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This PRISMA-ScR evidence map synthesized data from over 500 RF-EMF genotoxicity studies (3 kHz–300 GHz) across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological designs. The review reports a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported (notably with GSM talk-mode, pulsed signals, real devices, and longer exposures). It also reports that 58% of studies observing DNA damage used exposures below ICNIRP limits, and that funding source was a stronger predictor of experimental outcome than study quality.

Outcomes measured

• genotoxicity
• DNA damage
• DNA base damage
• cancer susceptibility (risk signal)
• reproductive harm (risk signal)
• neurological diseases/tumors (risk signal)
• ecological impacts (risk signal)

Limitations

• Inconsistent results across studies with diverse parameters (as noted in the overview).
• Evidence map/scoping approach summarizes patterns across heterogeneous studies; specific effect sizes are not provided in the abstract.
• Potential bias concerns are mentioned (quality assessed for potential bias), but detailed bias/quality results are not provided in the abstract.

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.9)
  Abstract explicitly discusses ICNIRP limits/guidelines and argues they may not protect against non-thermal genotoxicity.
• 5g-policy (0.55)
  Calls for inclusion of new technologies and frequencies (e.g., 5G) in research and discusses regulatory updates/precaution.

{
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "wireless technology",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "medium to long durations (as described)"
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "genotoxicity",
        "DNA damage",
        "DNA base damage",
        "cancer susceptibility (risk signal)",
        "reproductive harm (risk signal)",
        "neurological diseases/tumors (risk signal)",
        "ecological impacts (risk signal)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This PRISMA-ScR evidence map synthesized data from over 500 RF-EMF genotoxicity studies (3 kHz–300 GHz) across in vitro, in vivo, and epidemiological designs. The review reports a higher proportion of significant DNA damage findings in in vivo and epidemiological studies than in vitro studies, with DNA base damage commonly reported (notably with GSM talk-mode, pulsed signals, real devices, and longer exposures). It also reports that 58% of studies observing DNA damage used exposures below ICNIRP limits, and that funding source was a stronger predictor of experimental outcome than study quality.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Inconsistent results across studies with diverse parameters (as noted in the overview).",
        "Evidence map/scoping approach summarizes patterns across heterogeneous studies; specific effect sizes are not provided in the abstract.",
        "Potential bias concerns are mentioned (quality assessed for potential bias), but detailed bias/quality results are not provided in the abstract."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "RF-EMF",
        "radiofrequency electromagnetic field",
        "genotoxicity",
        "DNA damage",
        "DNA base damage",
        "epidemiology",
        "in vivo",
        "in vitro",
        "GSM",
        "pulsed signals",
        "ICNIRP limits",
        "non-thermal effects",
        "oxidative stress",
        "free radicals",
        "precautionary principle"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "reason": "Abstract explicitly discusses ICNIRP limits/guidelines and argues they may not protect against non-thermal genotoxicity."
        },
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.5500000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125,
            "reason": "Calls for inclusion of new technologies and frequencies (e.g., 5G) in research and discusses regulatory updates/precaution."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.