Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi

[EDIT:  if you like this post, you will probably find this one interesting too: Major wireless telecoms company patent admits exposure to WiFi is “genotoxic” and “causes clear damage to hereditary material” – click here]

Here is a collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools.  The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.

If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here and either print out this article to post or email the link.

Wi-Fi papers

1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.

2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.

3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249

4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.

5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.

6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.  part 2.

7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.

8. Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.

9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print.

10. Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689.

11. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456.

12. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.

13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.

14. Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.

(Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:

15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.

16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.


And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below)  (this is not comprehensive):

17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35.

18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116

19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741

20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35

21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300 part 2.

22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428

23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139

24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267

25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52

26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232

27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41

29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.

30. Panagopoulos D. al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.

31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.

32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27

33. Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355 part 2.

34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.

With thanks to WifiInSchools.

“A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.  It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.  When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
~ Dresden James

  1. Dear SSM,
    the link to attaching this article to facebook doesn’t seem to be working.

  2. The small population problem. If you feed a substance to four rats, and one dies that’s a 25% mortality – highly significant. If you feed the same substance to 100 rats and one dies that’s a 1% mortality – insignificant. The purpose of small scale studies is to get a significant (and therefore publishable) result for career advancement. n should be at least 100.

    1. n=5
    2. n=29
    3. n=15
    4. n=8
    5. n=6
    6. n=25 (as reported in 7.) Note: people are easily stressed.
    7. n=69 Note: people are easily stressed.
    8. n=15 (x2) Note: human memory is affected by stress.
    9. n=?
    10. n=6
    11. n=6
    12. n=8
    13. n=8 Note: same people, same place, same experiment as 4. and 12.
    Multiple publishing of one experiment is scientific fraud.
    14. n=15 (x2). Duplicate of 8.
    15. n=?
    16. n=6 Rewrite of 10. Multiple publishing of one experiment, and by
    the same group as 13.
    17. n=70 Note: fieldwork = poor control/hidden variables.
    18. n=59 and n=58. 900Mhz is not a wifi band.
    19. n=? 8.15-18 GHz is not a wifi band.
    20. n=? Apparent duplicate of 19.
    21. Duplicate of 6.
    22. n=? 50 GHz is not wifi band.
    23. n=? 50 GHz is not wifi band.
    24. Metastudy (a study of the results of other studies.)
    25. n=11. Note: people are easily stressed.
    26. n=32 900Mhz is not a wifi band.
    27. no source = no evidence.
    28. n=? 8.15-18 GHz is not wifi band.
    29. N=? Cell phone band not wifi band.
    30. n=? Cell phone band not wifi band.
    31. no source = no evidence.
    32. n=? 9.4 GHz is not wifi band.
    33. Duplicate of 21. and 6.
    34. n=8 (x3) Cell phone band not wifi band.

    Frankly, you’ve got squat: the homeopaths could make fun of you!

    • The first 16 papers were Wi-Fi or 2.45GHz studies, but the others were never claimed to be testing Wi-Fi. I will make a slight modification to the title to more accurately reflect this, but it was made clear in the main post body that beyond entry number 16 we were talking about similar, low-power microwave frequencies (below 6V/m).

      Regarding your point about small scales – the Home Office require that any institution which carries out animal studies does everything they can to reduce the numbers of animals used for scientific research (the 3Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement). Therefore all scientists should be trying to reduce numbers to only what might be necessary to show any possible effects. This is not for career advancement, but to reduce the numbers of animals used in research.

      Re: your comment on 6, 7, and 8 and your mention that people can be stressed. They can, and that is why studies include sham controls, are carried out ‘blind’, and sham or real exposures are randomised, so that the study carefully controls for any other possible stress responses.

      Re: your comment on 13. This was not the same paper as 4 and 12 – 13 is looking at testis, 4 is looking at laryngotracheal mucosa and 12 is looking at the brain and dorsal root ganglion. There is nothing wrong with a group conducting experiments in the same place and under the same conditions, the papers were looking at the effects on different parts of the body.

      Re: 14 – that is not a duplicate of 8. 14 was looking at event-related potentials during a modified Hayling Sentence Completion test and 8 was looking at alpha and beta wave energies with the digit span Wechsler Auditory test.

      Re: comment on 16. 16 was looking at heart tissue and 10 was looking at rat brain.

      Re: 31, source has been added.

      Most studies were looking at several measures, such as antioxidants, histological changes, measures of possible damage to DNA, etc. When significant effects are observed only under exposure conditions with several of these measurements, it is likely that the effects are due to exposure and not due to random changes in any individuals within the study. Reversal of measures of oxidative stress by an antioxidant also strengthens the results. Responses were in agreement with many studies which have already demonstrated similar significant changes in response to mobile phone signals.

      And for the record, we have nothing against the homeopaths that you seem to have contempt for. It’s the paid shills and trolls who make a buck protecting their $bn dollar industries who are the problem.

    • What would you propose as a test that would or could show the truth?

      Im willing to invest some into getting some answers in this case.

  3. In order to protect yourself from EMF : The iewei wristband mesures electromagnetic waves exposure around you. more info at

  4. I guess it’s not enough to state IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that a person is experiencing ill health from a KNOWN NEUROTOXIN. I guess our “societies” have progressed so far that we need a scientific panel of experts to let us know whether or not we are well.

    You folks are not getting the drift here. This is a self-imposed extermination program, and YOU are funding it with your tax dollars, YOUR purchase of dangerous technology, and YOUR contributions to corporate extortion. Keep paying your taxes on time, and ante up big on your retirement portfolios.

    Destiny is just around the corner…

    • Writing scary prophet-like posts are a little bit useless. Be constructive, people have some perhaps misguided trust in government and other caretakers. Where to start to really make an impact?