Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences

Abstract

Computer simulation using MRI scans of children is the only possible way to determine the microwave radiation (MWR) absorbed in specific tissues in children. Children absorb more MWR than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen. Children are at greater risk than adults when exposed to any carcinogen. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood. The fetus is particularly vulnerable to MWR. MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons. MWR-emitting toys are being sold for use by young infants and toddlers. Digital dementia has been reported in school age children. A case study has shown when cellphones are placed in teenage girls’ bras multiple primary breast cancer develop beneath where the phones are placed. MWR exposure limits have remained unchanged for 19 years. All manufacturers of smartphones have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which phone must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to MWR. The exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Belgium, France, India and other technologically sophisticated governments are passing laws and/or issuing warnings about children's use of wireless devices.

Full text

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
jo
ur
nal
homep
age:
www.els
evier.com/locate/jmau
Review
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences
L.
Lloyd
Morgana,∗,
Santosh
Kesarib,
Devra
Lee
Davisa
aEnvironmental
Health
Trust,
USA
bUniversity
of
California,
San
Diego,
USA
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
4
April
2014
Received
in
revised
form
3
June
2014
Accepted
24
June
2014
Available
online
xxx
Keywords:
Tumors
Myelin
Carcinogen
Fetus
Children
Latency
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Computer
simulation
using
MRI
scans
of
children
is
the
only
possible
way
to
determine
the
microwave
radiation
(MWR)
absorbed
in
specific
tissues
in
children.
Children
absorb
more
MWR
than
adults
because
their
brain
tissues
are
more
absorbent,
their
skulls
are
thinner
and
their
relative
size
is
smaller.
MWR
from
wireless
devices
has
been
declared
a
possible
human
carcinogen.
Children
are
at
greater
risk
than
adults
when
exposed
to
any
carcinogen.
Because
the
average
latency
time
between
first
exposure
and
diagnosis
of
a
tumor
can
be
decades,
tumors
induced
in
children
may
not
be
diagnosed
until
well
into
adulthood.
The
fetus
is
particularly
vulnerable
to
MWR.
MWR
exposure
can
result
in
degeneration
of
the
protective
myelin
sheath
that
surrounds
brain
neurons.
MWR-emitting
toys
are
being
sold
for
use
by
young
infants
and
toddlers.
Digital
dementia
has
been
reported
in
school
age
children.
A
case
study
has
shown
when
cellphones
are
placed
in
teenage
girls’
bras
multiple
primary
breast
cancer
develop
beneath
where
the
phones
are
placed.
MWR
exposure
limits
have
remained
unchanged
for
19
years.
All
manufacturers
of
smartphones
have
warnings
which
describe
the
minimum
distance
at
which
phone
must
be
kept
away
from
users
in
order
to
not
exceed
the
present
legal
limits
for
exposure
to
MWR.
The
exposure
limit
for
laptop
computers
and
tablets
is
set
when
devices
are
tested
20
cm
away
from
the
body.
Belgium,
France,
India
and
other
technologically
sophisticated
governments
are
passing
laws
and/or
issuing
warnings
about
children’s
use
of
wireless
devices.
©
2014
Saudi
Society
of
Microscopes.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.1.
Computer
simulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.2.
Children’s
greater
absorption
of
MWR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.3.
Microwave
radiation
is
a
Class
2B
(possible)
carcinogen
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.3.1.
Children
are
at
increased
risk
when
exposed
to
carcinogens
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.4.
Exposure
limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.4.1.
The
19
year
old
IEEE
and
17
year
old
ICNIRP
exposure
limits
are
based
on
a
false
premise
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
Abbreviations:
MRI,
magnetic
resonance
imaging;
MWR,
microwave
radiation;
CNS,
central
nervous
system;
FDTD,
finite-difference,
time-domain;
GBM,
glioblastoma
multiforme
(also
called
glioblastoma);
cm,
centimeter.
∗Corresponding
author
at:
Environmental
Health
Trust,
P.O.
Box
58,
Teton
Village,
WY
83025,
USA.
Tel.:
+1
510
841
4362.
E-mail
address:
Lloyd.L.Morgan@gmail.com
(L.L.
Morgan).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
2213-879X/©
2014
Saudi
Society
of
Microscopes.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
2
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
1.4.2.
FCC
compliance
requirements
do
not
comport
with
current
testing
systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.4.3.
There
is
a
20
cm
distance
rule
for
tablets
and
laptop
computers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
2.
Materials
and
methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.1.
Early
development
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.1.1.
Fetal
exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.1.2.
Myelination
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.2.
Children
and
adolescents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.2.1.
Breast
cancers
resulting
from
placement
of
cellphones
in
bras.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.2.2.
Parotid
gland
tumors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.2.3.
Sperm
damage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
3.3.
Tumor
latency
times
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.1.
Wireless
device
exposure
limit
certification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.2.
Cellphone
manual
warnings
and
20
cm
distance
rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.3.
Increasing
brain
cancer
incidence
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.4.
Selling
toys
for
infants
and
toddlers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.5.
Digital
dementia
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
4.6.
Governmental
warnings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
5.
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
Acknowledgements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
1.
Introduction
Here
we
discuss:
how
the
amount
of
MWR
can
be
cal-
culated,
children’s
greater
absorption
of
MWR
compared
to
adults’
adsorption,
MWR’s
listing
as
a
Class
2B
(possible)
carcinogen,
the
existing
legal
limits
for
human
exposure
to
MWR,
and
that
the
existing
legal
limits
do
not
incorporate
the
greater
exposure
to
children.
1.1.
Computer
simulation
The
finite-difference,
time-domain
(FDTD)
computer
algorithm
has
been
the
best
way
to
simulate
the
amount
of
absorbed
MWR
in
tissues
for
many
decades.
In
1997
the
U.S.
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
stated,
“Currently,
the
finite-difference
time-domain
(FDTD)
algo-
rithm
is
the
most
widely
accepted
computational
method
for
SAR
modeling.
This
method
adapts
very
well
to
the
tis-
sue
models
that
are
usually
derived
from
MRI
or
CT
scans.
FDTD
method
offers
great
flexibility
in
modeling
the
inho-
mogeneous
structures
of
anatomical
tissues
and
organs.
The
FDTD
method
has
been
used
in
many
far-field
electro-
magnetic
applications
during
the
last
three
decades.
With
recent
advances
in
computer
technology,
it
has
become
possible
to
apply
this
method
to
near-field
applications
for
evaluating
handsets”
[1].
1.2.
Children’s
greater
absorption
of
MWR
There
are
multiple
studies
showing
that
children
absorb
more
MWR
than
adults.
In
1996
a
study
reported
that
the
absorbed
MWR
penetrated
proportionally
deeper
into
the
brain
of
children
age
5
and
10
compared
to
adults’
brains
[2].
In
2008
Joe
Wiart,
a
senior
researcher
for
French
tele-
com
and
Orange
reported
that
the
brain
tissue
of
children
absorbed
about
two
times
more
MWR
than
adults’
brain
tissue
[3].
A
2009
study
reported
the
CNS
absorption
by
children
is
“significantly
larger
(∼2×)
because
the
RF
[MWR]
source
is
closer
and
skin
and
bone
layers
are
thinner”,
and
“bone
marrow
exposure
strongly
varies
with
age
and
is
signifi-
cantly
larger
for
children
(∼10×)”
[4].
In
2010,
Andreas
Christ
and
team
reported
children’s
hippocampus
and
hypothalamus
absorbs
1.6–3.1
times
higher
and
the
cerebellum
absorbs
2.5
times
higher
MWR
compared
to
adults’;
children’s
bone
marrow
absorbs
10
times
higher
MWR
radiation
than
in
adults,
and
children’s
eyes
absorb
higher
MWR
than
adults
[5].
These
calculations
were
based
on
porcine
measurements
taken
from
sacrificed
animals.
1.3.
Microwave
radiation
is
a
Class
2B
(possible)
carcinogen
After
30
experts
from
14
countries
reviewed
the
science,
the
World
Health
Organization’s
(WHO’s)
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer
(IARC)
declared
that
RF-EMF
[MWR]
is
a
Class
2B
(possible)
carcinogen
[6].
It
was
a
near
unanimous
declaration
(one
dissenter).
Including
MWR,
there
are
285
agents
listed
by
WHO’s
IARC
as
Class
2B
carcinogens
[7].
Exposures
to
almost
all
of
these
agents
are
regulated.
Some
of
the
commonly
recognized
agents
are:
carbon
black,
carbon
tetrachlo-
ride,
chloroform,
DDT,
lead,
nickel,
phenobarbital,
styrene,
diesel
fuel,
and
gasoline.
Like
these
other
Class
2B
Carcinogens,
should
anyone,
particularly
children,
be
exposed
to
MWR?
1.3.1.
Children
are
at
increased
risk
when
exposed
to
carcinogens
Children
are
at
greater
risk
from
exposure
to
carcino-
gens
than
adults,
and
the
younger
the
child,
the
higher
the
risk
[8–10].

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
3
1.4.
Exposure
limits
In
1996,
the
FCC
adopted
the
IEEE
1991[11]
standard
with
some
details
from
the
1986
NCRP
Report
[12]
as
expo-
sure
limits
in
the
United
States.
Nineteen
years
after
the
FCC
exposure
limits
were
published,
based
on
documents
published
24
and
29
years
previously,
the
legal
exposure
limit
has
remained
unchanged.
Yet
during
these
decades
an
enormous
body
of
scientific
studies
was
published
repor-
ting
risk
well
below
the
legal
exposure
limit.
The
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronic
Engineers
(IEEE)
is
an
industry
professional
organization,
as
is
the
National
Council
on
Radiation
Protection
(NCRP).
Neither
organization
had
medical
or
public
health
expertise.
In
European
countries
and
a
few
other
countries,
the
exposure
limits
are
based
on
the
1998
“Guidelines”
of
the
International
Commission
for
Non-Ionizing
Radiation
Pro-
tection
(ICNIRP)
[13].
These
“Guidelines”
were
based
on
publications
from
1984,
1987,
1991,
and
1993
[page
494].
That
is
the
“Guidelines”
were
based
on
publications
up
to
31
years
ago,
Similar
to
the
IEEE
and
NCRP,
ICNIRP
is
an
organization
without
medical
or
public
health
expertise.
It
is
accountable
to
no
government
and
its
funding
sources
are
not
transparent.
1.4.1.
The
19
year
old
IEEE
and
17
year
old
ICNIRP
exposure
limits
are
based
on
a
false
premise
The
exposure
limits
are
premised
on
an
assumption
that
the
only
biological
effect
from
MWR
exposure
is
acute
(short-term)
heating
sufficient
to
cause
tissue
damage.
There
is
no
consideration
of
the
effects
from
chronic
(long-
term)
exposures.
There
are
many
scientific
papers
that
report
biological
impacts
tied
with
non-thermal
(no
mea-
surable
temperature
change)
effects.
Indeed,
the
480-page
IARC
Monograph
102
that
documents
the
science
that
led
to
the
declaration
that
MWR
is
a
Class
2B
(possible)
car-
cinogen
is
a
virtual
compendium
of
such
papers
[14].
1.4.2.
FCC
compliance
requirements
do
not
comport
with
current
testing
systems
The
FCC
requires
“For
purposes
of
evaluating
compli-
ance
with
localized
SAR
guidelines,
portable
devices
should
be
tested
or
evaluated
based
on
normal
operating
positions
or
conditions”
[15].
But
phones
are
not
tested
in
pants
or
shirt
pockets.
As
a
result
every
cellphone
manual
has
war-
nings
that
the
phone
should
be
kept
at
various
distances
from
the
body
otherwise
the
human
exposure
limits
can
be
exceeded.
Here
are
two
of
many
examples:
(1)
The
BlackBerry
Torch
9800
Smart
Phone
warns,
“keep
the
BlackBerry
device
at
least
0.98
in.
(25
mm)
from
your
body
(including
the
abdomen
of
pregnant
women
and
the
lower
abdomen
of
teenagers).”
“Lower
abdomen”
is
an
oblique
reference
to
testicles
and
“abdomen
of
pregnant
women”
is
an
oblique
reference
to
the
fetus.
(2)
The
iPhone
5’s
manual
is
embedded
within
the
phone:
Users
must
go
to
“Settings,”
and
scroll
down
to
“Gen-
eral,”
then
scroll
to
the
bottom
to
“About,”
go
to
“Legal,”
scroll
down
to
“RF
[MWR]
Exposure”
where
it
reads,
“To
reduce
exposure
to
RF
energy,
use
a
hands-free
option,
such
as
the
built-in
speakerphone,
the
supplied
head-
phones,
or
other
similar
accessories.
Carry
iPhone
at
least
10
mm
away
from
your
body
to
ensure
exposure
levels
remain
at
or
below
the
as-tested
[exposure
limit]
levels.”
1.4.3.
There
is
a
20
cm
distance
rule
for
tablets
and
laptop
computers
“For
purposes
of
these
requirements
mobile1devices
are
defined
by
the
FCC
as
transmitters
designed
to
be
used
in
other
than
fixed
locations
and
to
generally
be
used
in
such
a
way
that
a
separation
distance
of
at
least
20
cm
is
normally
maintained
between
radiating
structures
and
the
body
of
the
user
or
nearby
persons”
[16].
Clearly,
this
20
cm
rule
contradicts
the
“normal
oper-
ating
position”
regulation
in
the
description
“a
separation
distance
of
at
least
20
cm
is
normally
maintained.”
Indeed,
“laptop”
computer
directly
implies
that
it
is
to
be
placed
on
a
lap
which
is
not
20
cm
distant
from
the
user.
The
growing
use
of
tablets
by
young
children
in
schools
contradicts
these
normal
tested
conditions
as
well,
as
these
children
have
shorter
arms
that
do
not
allow
them
to
hold
devices
20
cm
from
their
bodies.
2.
Materials
and
methods
We
have
performed
a
review
of
the
peer-reviewed
cell-
phone
exposure
epidemiology
from
2009
to
2014,
and
cellphone
dosimetry
since
the
1970s
from
a
previous
paper
[17],
along
with
relevant
governmental
and
other
policy
documents,
manufacturers’
manuals
and
similar
docu-
ments.
3.
Results
3.1.
Early
development
Here
we
present
evidence
of
harmful
effects
from
expo-
sure
to
MWR
during
early
developmental
stages
both
in
animals
and
in
humans.
3.1.1.
Fetal
exposures
A
study
from
Yale
University
School
of
Medicine
exposed
mice
in
utero
to
MWR
[18].
The
study
reported
that
these
mice
were
hyperactive
and
had
impaired
mem-
ory
“due
to
altered
neuronal
developmental
programming.
Exposed
mice
had
dose-responsive
impaired
glutamater-
gic
synaptic
transmission
onto
layer
V
pyramidal
neurons
of
the
prefrontal
cortex.”
During
pregnancy
the
mice
were
irradiated
by
a
cellphone
positioned
above
each
cage
pos-
itioned
over
the
feeding
bottle
at
a
distance
of
4.5–22.3
cm
from
each
mouse
depending
on
the
location
of
the
mouse
within
the
cage.
Controls
were
under
the
same
condition
but
the
phone
was
not
active.
The
observed
effects
were
1The
FCC
defines
laptop
computers,
tablets
and
similar
devices
as
“mobile
devices”
in
comparison
to
“portable
devices”
which
are
cell
and
cordless
phones
and
similar
devices;
the
former
falls
under
the
20
cm
rule,
the
latter
has
no
such
rule.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
4
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
similar
to
attention
deficit
hyperactivity
disorder
(ADHD)
in
children.
A
Turkish
study
reported
on
a
900
MHz
in
utero
expo-
sure
of
rats
[19].
“The
results
showed
that
prenatal
EMF
exposure
caused
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
granule
cells
in
the
dentate
gyrus
of
the
rats
(p
<
0.01).
This
sug-
gests
that
prenatal
exposure
to
a
900
MHz
EMF
affects
the
development
of
the
dentate
gyrus
granule
cells
in
the
rat
hippocampus.”
A
Chinese
study
investigated
effects
of
MWR
emitted
by
cellphones
on
rat
CNS,
in
vitro
(cortical
neuronal
cells)
and
in
vivo
(rat’s
brain)
[20].
Neuronal
cells
had
a
significantly
higher
death
rate
at
power
densities
of
0.05
mW/cm2and
above.
In
vivo
results
show
increased
apoptosis
with
DNA
fragmentation.
3.1.2.
Myelination
A
myelin
sheath
covering
neurons
acts
as
an
insulation
of
the
electrical
activity
of
neurons.
In
human
embryos,
the
first
layer
develops
from
mid-gestation
to
2
years
of
age
and
continues
into
adolescence
[21].
Myelination
of
the
brain
is
not
complete
until
early
adulthood.
There
are
two
studies
with
reported
degeneration
of
the
myelin
sheath
after
MWR
exposure:
A
1972
study
from
Poland
reported
myelin
degeneration
and
glial
cell
proliferation
in
guinea
pigs
and
rabbits
from
a
3
GHz
exposure
[22].
In
1977
Switzer
&
Mitchell
reported
a
2.45
GHz
expo-
sure
in
rats
increased
myelin
degeneration
in
rat
brains
at
6
weeks
after
exposure.
They
concluded
“The
results
of
our
study
and
related
investigations
by
others
indicated
that
exposures
to
low-intensity
MW
irradiation
can
result
both
in
transient
and
in
long-term
structural
anomalies
in
CNS
tissue
and
may
result
in
various
hematologic
irregularities”
[23].
3.2.
Children
and
adolescents
Aydin
et
al.
in
a
study
of
cellphone
use
by
children
and
adolescents
(median
age
13
years),
reported
a
significant
risk
of
brain
cancer
and
a
significant
exposure–response
relationship
for
>2.8
years
since
first
cellphone
subscrip-
tion,
OR
=
2.15,
CI
=
1.07–4.29,
p-trend
=
0.001
for
increasing
risk
with
increasing
time
since
first
subscription
with
oper-
ator
recorded
use
data
(billing
records)
[24].
Yet
the
study’s
conclusion
states,
“The
absence
of
an
exposure–response
relationship
either
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
mobile
phone
use
.
.
.
argues
against
a
causal
association.”
It
is
unclear
why
the
conclusion
directly
contradicts
the
published
results.
The
study
was
funded
in
part
by
cellphone
companies.
A
Swedish
study
reported
when
first
cellphone
use
began
as
a
teenager
or
younger
there
was
a
significant
ipsi-
lateral
risk
of
brain
cancer,
OR
=
7.8,
CI
=
2.2–28,
p
<
0.01,
and
an
almost
identical
ipsilateral
risk
from
cordless
phone
use,
OR
=
7.9,
CI
=
2.5–25,
p
<
0.001
[9].
A
Korean
study
found
risks
for
ADHD
in
first
grade
(ages
7–8)
children
and
followed
them
to
ages
12–13
[25].
“The
ADHD
symptom
risk
associated
with
mobile
phone
use
for
voice
calls
but
the
association
was
limited
to
children
exposed
to
relatively
high
[blood]
lead
[levels].”
With
an
average
time
per
cellphone
call
of
½
to
<1
min,
OR
=
5.66,
Fig.
1.
Increase
of
parotid
gland
tumors
relative
to
other
salivary
gland
tumors
in
Israel.
CI
=
1.31–24.51
and
for
1+
minutes
per
call,
OR
=
7.20,
CI
=
1.37–37.91,
p-trend
=
0.02.
For
children
playing
games
for
3+
minutes/day
a
significant
risk
for
ADHD,
OR
=
1.94,
CI
=
1.30–2.89,
p
<
0.001,
and
p-trend
<
0.001
in
the
lower
blood
lead
level
group.
Elsewhere
it
has
been
shown
the
low-level
exposures
to
MWR
increases
the
permeability
of
the
blood–brain
bar-
rier
[26–28].
This
suggests
children
exposed
to
lead
who
use
cellphone
might
have
increased
blood
lead
levels
in
the
brain.
3.2.1.
Breast
cancers
resulting
from
placement
of
cellphones
in
bras
A
case
study
reported
4
women
who
placed
cellphones
in
their
bras.
Two
were
diagnosed
at
age
21,
with
one
who
had
begun
placing
her
cellphone
in
her
bra
at
age
15.
This
resulted
in
multiple
primary
breast
cancers
immediately
beneath
where
the
cellphone
were
placed
[29].
3.2.2.
Parotid
gland
tumors
The
parotid
gland
is
a
large
salivary
gland
in
the
cheek
immediately
next
to
where
a
cellphone
is
held
to
the
ear.
A
Chinese
study
reported
statistically
significant
increased
risks
of
10-
to
30-fold
[30].
With
more
than
10
years
since
first
use
of
a
cellphone,
the
risk
of
epithe-
lial
parotid
gland
cancer,
OR
=
10.631,
CI
=
5.306–21.300,
p
<
10−10;
similarly
the
risk
for
mucoepidermoid
carci-
noma,
OR
=
20.72,
CI
=
9.379–45.821,
p
<
10−13,
and
for
average
daily
use
of
>3.5
h,
OR
=
30.255,
CI
=
10.799–90.456,
p
<
10−10.
An
Israeli
Interphone
study
found
significant
risk
of
parotid
gland
tumors
[31].
“For
ipsilateral
use,
the
odds
ratios
in
the
highest
category
of
cumulative
number
of
calls
and
call
time
without
use
of
hands-free
devices
were
1.58
(95%
confidence
interval:
1.11,
2.24)
and
1.49
(95%
confi-
dence
interval:
1.05,
2.13),
respectively.”
Another
Israeli
study
showed
that
among
the
3
salivary
glands,
the
only
increase
was
the
parotid
gland
[32].
“The
total
number
of
parotid
gland
cancers
in
Israel
increased
4-
fold
from
1970
to
2006
.
.
.
whereas
two
other
salivary
gland
cancers
remained
stable.”
Fig.
1
illustrates
the
enormous

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
5
increase
in
parotid
gland
tumors
relative
to
other
salivary
gland
tumors.
A
newspaper
in
Israel
reported
“[S]alivary
gland
cancer,
which
researchers
suspect
to
be
linked
to
cellphone
use,
was
disproportionately
common
among
young
patients.
One
fifth
of
those
patients
were
under
20”
[33].
3.2.3.
Sperm
damage
Perhaps
more
than
any
other
adverse
health
effect
from
exposure
to
MWR,
damage
to
sperm
is
the
most
documented
including
in
vitro,
in
vivo
and
human
epidemi-
ological
studies.
A
2005
study
with
data
collection
from
November
2002
to
March
2004
examined
the
motility
of
sperm.
“The
pro-
portion
of
slow
progressive
motile
sperm
increased
with
increase
of
the
duration
of
the
daily
transmission
time
p
<
0.01”
[34].
A
study
of
cellphone
usage
among
men
who
attended
an
infertility
clinic
concluded,
“Use
of
cell
phones
decrease
the
semen
quality
in
men
by
decreasing
the
sperm
count,
motility,
viability,
and
normal
morphology.
The
decrease
in
sperm
parameters
was
dependent
on
the
duration
of
daily
exposure
to
cell
phones
and
independent
of
the
initial
semen
quality”
[35].
A
Japanese
study
reported
“This
study
has
indicated
sig-
nificant
decrease
in
sperm
count
[p
=
0.004]
and
motility
[p
=
0.003]
.
.
.
because
of
exposure
to
MP
[Mobile
Phone]
emission,
respectively”
[36].
An
Australian
study
investigated
how
sperm
cells
are
damaged
by
cellphone
MWR.
Its
conclusions
stated
“RF-
EMR
[Radio
Frequency-Electro
Magnetic
Radiation]
in
both
the
power
density
and
frequency
range
of
mobile
phones
enhances
mitochondrial
reactive
oxygen
species
genera-
tion
by
human
spermatozoa,
decreasing
the
motility
and
vitality
of
these
cells
while
stimulating
DNA
base
adduct
formation
and,
ultimately
DNA
fragmentation.
These
find-
ings
have
clear
implications
for
the
safety
of
extensive
mobile
phone
use
by
males
of
reproductive
age,
potentially
affecting
both
their
fertility
and
the
health
and
well-being
of
their
offspring”
[37].
Professor
Stanton
A.
Glantz
is
a
Professor
of
Medicine
at
the
University
of
California,
San
Francisco
Medical
School.
He
is
also
author
of
a
renowned
graduate
level
statistics
textbook,
Primer
of
Biostatistics,
Seventh
Edition
[38].
Refer-
ring
to
the
above
four
studies
on
sperm
damage
from
MWR
he
concludes:
“Taking
all
the
information
we
have
discussed
on
cell
phones
and
sperm
allows
us
to
confidently
conclude
that
exposure
to
cell
phones
adversely
effects
sperm.”
A
study
of
temperature
controlled
human
sperm
placed
3
cm
beneath
a
laptop
computer
connected
to
Wi-Fi
for
4
h
[39]
reported,
“Donor
sperm
samples,
mostly
normo-
zoospermic
[normal
sperm],
exposed
ex
vivo
during
4
h
to
a
wireless
internet-connected
laptop
showed
a
significant
decrease
in
progressive
sperm
motility
and
an
increase
in
sperm
DNA
fragmentation.”
The
study
concluded
“Ex
vivo
exposure
of
human
spermatozoa
to
a
wireless
internet-
connected
laptop
decreased
motility
and
induced
DNA
fragmentation
by
a
nonthermal
effect.
We
speculate
that
Fig.
2.
SAM
Phantom.
The
red
devices
are
clamps
to
hold
the
cellphone
in
a
specified
location.
“CTIA”
is
the
Cellular
Telecommunications
Industry
Association.
Source:
Speag
Phantom
Product
Flyer.
keeping
a
laptop
connected
wirelessly
to
the
internet
on
the
lap
near
the
testes
may
result
in
decreased
male
fertility.”
3.3.
Tumor
latency
times
The
average
time
between
exposure
to
a
carcinogen
and
the
diagnosis
of
a
resultant
solid
tumor
is
3
or
more
decades.
Brain
tumors,
like
lung
cancer
and
many
other
solid
tumors
have,
on
average,
long
latency
times
[8,40].
Therefore,
it
may
be
several
decades
before
tumors
induced
by
current
MWR
exposures
in
children
are
diagnosed.
For
example,
the
Israeli
study
showing
brain
tumor
risk
was
inverse
with
age
had
long
latency
times
[8].
In
contrast
the
Aydin
et
al.
study
had
relatively
short
latency
times
[24].
4.
Discussion
4.1.
Wireless
device
exposure
limit
certification
The
FCC
has
approved
two
processes
to
certify
that
a
wireless
device
meets
the
required
exposure
limit:
(1)
The
computer
simulation
process,
and
(2)
The
Specific
Anthropomorphic
Mannequin
(SAM)
pro-
cess.
The
computer
simulation
process
is
discussed
above.
The
SAM
process
is
based
on
a
plastic
mannequin
rep-
resenting
the
top
10%
largest
U.S.
military
recruits
in
1989.
Any
head
smaller
than
SAM
will
absorb
more
MWR
(∼97%
of
the
U.S.
population)
[17].
A
liquid
with
the
average
adult
absorption
properties
of
the
40
tissues
of
the
head
is
poured
into
a
hole
at
the
top
of
this
head.
A
robotic
arm
with
an
electric
field
probe
is
positioned
within
the
mannequin
such
that
the
location
of
the
highest
electric
field
is
located
within
any
one
cubic
centimeter
volume.
A
cellphone
to
be
certified
is
clamped
to
either
side
of
SAM
(see
Fig.
2).
The
electric
fields
values
are
used
to
calculate
the
maximum
spatial
peak
Specific
Absorption
Rate
(SAR)
for
any
1
g
of

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
6
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
Table
1
A
comparison
of
the
capability
to
measure
SAR
using
the
computer
simulation
certification
process
or
the
SAM
certification
process
for
various
exposures.
Attribute
SAM
process
FDTD
process
Comments
Children’s
exposure
No
Yes
Multiple
ages
Pregnant
women’s
exposure
No
Yes
1,
3
and
9
months
Female
exposure
No
Yes
Specific
tissue
parameters No
Yes
3-D
resolution ∼1
cm3<1
mm3
Relative
cost
Higher
Lower
Medical
implant
exposure
No
Yes
Testicle
exposure
No
Yes
Female
breast
exposure
No
Yes
With
and
without
wire
frame
bra
Eye
exposure
No
Yes
With
and
without
wire
frame
eyeglasses
Thyroid
gland
exposure
No
Yes
With
and
without
metal
necklace
Parotid
gland
exposure
No
Yes
With
and
without
dental
braces
Adapted
from
Gandhi
et
al.
[17].
tissue
(equivalent
to
1
cm3volume).
If
the
maximum
SAR
is
at
or
below
the
U.S.
exposure
limit
of
1.6
W/kg
the
phone
is
certified
for
sale
without
regard
to
the
±30%
tolerance
of
the
SAM
certification
process
[41].
Table
1
compares
the
capabilities
of
the
two
cellphone
certification
processes.
As
can
be
seen
in
Table
1
the
SAM
process
is
not
capable
of
determining
the
MWR
absorption
as
measured
by
SAR
in
every
category
except
the
relative
cost
and
volume
reso-
lution.
Nevertheless,
the
SAM
process
has
been
exclusively
used
to
certify
every
cellphone
to
date.
4.2.
Cellphone
manual
warnings
and
20
cm
distance
rule
In
spite
of
an
FCC
regulation
“For
purposes
of
evaluating
compliance
with
localized
SAR
guidelines,
portable
devices
should
be
tested
or
evaluated
based
on
normal
operating
positions
or
conditions”
[15],
this
regulation
is
ignored
by
the
FCC.
Holding
a
cellphone
at
a
defined
distance
from
your
body
is
not
“based
on
normal
operating
positions”!
For
laptop
computers,
tablets
and
similar
devices,
an
exposure
limit
that
begins
at
a
distance
of
20
cm
is
not
“based
on
normal
operating
positions.”
Indeed
the
very
term
“laptop”
computer
defines
the
normal
operating
posi-
tion,
which
when
placed
on
the
lap
is
not
20
cm
distant.
4.3.
Increasing
brain
cancer
incidence
There
are
studies
showing
an
increased
risk
of
brain
cancer
from
wireless
phone
use.
It
is
a
current
problem.
The
worst
brain
cancer,
glioblastoma,
has
increased
in
the
United
States,
and
Denmark.
Brain
cancer
incidence
has
increased
in
Australia
in
recent
years.
These
results
are
based
on
brain
cancer
incidence
from
each
country’s
cancer
registries.
A
United
States
study
examined
3
cancer
registries
(Los
Angeles
County,
California
and
SEER
122)
[42].
It
examined
incidence
rates
between
years
1992–2006
and
reported
the
Average
Percent
Change
(APC)
during
those
years.
“RESULTS:
Increased
AAIRs
[Age-Adjusted
Incidence
Rates]
of
frontal
(APC
+2.4–3.0%,
p
≤
0.001)
and
temporal
(APC
2SEER
12
is
cancer
registry
data
maintained
by
the
National
Cancer
Institute
(NCI)
using
12
States
of
the
United
States.
+1.3–2.3%,
p
≤
0.027)
lobe
glioblastoma
multiforme
(GBM)
tumors
were
observed
across
all
registries
.
.
.
The
AAIR
of
cerebellar
GBMs
increased
according
to
CCR
(APC
+11.9%,
p
<
0.001).”
The
Danish
Cancer
Registry
issued
a
press
release
that
stated,
“The
number
of
men
who
are
diagnosed
with
the
most
malignant
form
of
brain
cancer
(glioblastoma),
has
almost
doubled
over
the
past
ten
years”
[43].
The
Australian
study
reported,
“an
overall
significant
increase
in
primary
malignant
brain
tumors
was
observed
over
the
study
period
from
2000
to
2008
(APC,
3.9;
95%CI,
2.4–5.4),
particularly
since
2004
(overall
AAPC,
3.9;
95%
CI,
2.6–5.2)”
[44].
4.4.
Selling
toys
for
infants
and
toddlers
The
iPad,
tablets,
laptop
computers
and
cellphones
are
not
children’s
toys.
Within
20
cm
of
the
device,
the
exposure
limit
can
be
exceeded
with
iPads
and
laptop
com-
puters.
Figs.
3–5
are
examples
of
toys
for
sale
(there
are
many
more
similar
toys).
4.5.
Digital
dementia
Digital
dementia
also
referred
to
as
FOMO
(Fear
Of
Miss-
ing
Out)
is
a
real
concern.
A
science
publication’s
review
Fig.
3.
An
iPad
placed
within
a
rattle.
Note
the
device
is
immediately
over
the
boy’s
testicles.

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
7
Fig.
4.
2-in-1
iPotty
with
Activity
Seat
for
iPad.
Fig.
5.
An
iPad
for
entertaining
a
baby.
article
describes
the
problem
in
great
depth
[45].
An
empir-
ical
study
of
the
problem
was
published
in
2013
[46].
4.6.
Governmental
warnings
Many
countries
have
issue
warning
about
children’s
cellphone
use.
Some
examples
are:
Turkey
2013:
Governor
Aksoy
Huseyin,
of
the
Samsun
province
announced
he
would
launch
a
cellphone
campaign
to
bring
awareness
of
their
hazards.
Belgium
2013:
The
Public
Health
Minister
bans
cellphone
sales
for
children
under
7
years
old.
Advertisements
are
also
banned
during
children’s
TV
programs.
Australia
2013:
The
federal
government
created
a
fact
sheet
providing
citizens
ways
to
reduce
exposure
from
wireless
devices.
The
agency
advises
parents
to
limit
children’s
exposure
to
cellphones.
France,
2010
Laws
make
advertising
cellphones
to
children
under
the
age
of
12
illegal.
5.
Conclusions
The
risk
to
children
and
adolescent
from
exposure
to
microwave
radiating
devices
is
considerable.
Adults
have
a
smaller
but
very
real
risk,
as
well.
(1)
Children
absorb
greater
amount
of
microwave
radia-
tion
(MWR)
than
adults;
(2)
MWR
is
a
Class
2B
(possible)
carcinogen
as
is
car-
bon
black,
carbon
tetrachloride,
chloroform,
DDT,
lead,
nickel,
phenobarbital,
styrene,
diesel
fuel,
and
gasoline.
It
seems
clear
that
we
would
not
expose
children
to
these
other
agents,
so
why
would
we
expose
children
to
microwave
radiation?
(3)
Fetuses
are
even
more
vulnerable
than
children.
There-
fore
pregnant
women
should
avoid
exposing
their
fetus
to
microwave
radiation.
(4)
Adolescent
girls
and
women
should
not
place
cell-
phones
in
their
bras
or
in
hijabs.
(5)
Cellphone
manual
warnings
make
clear
an
overexpo-
sure
problem
exists.
(6)
Wireless
devices
are
radio
transmitters,
not
toys.
Sell-
ing
toys
that
use
them
should
be
banned.
(7)
Government
warnings
have
been
issued
but
most
of
the
public
are
unaware
of
such
warnings.
(8)
Exposure
limits
are
inadequate
and
should
be
revised
such
that
they
are
adequate.
Acknowledgements
Barb
Payne
for
her
special
proof
reading
skills
and
Mary
Redmayne
for
her
advice
and
guidance.
References
[1]
Cleveland
Jr
RF,
Sylvar
DM,
Ulcek
JL.
Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Electromag-
netic
Fields.
Additional
Information
for
Evaluating
Compliance
of
Mobile
and
Portable
Devices
with
FCC
Limits
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Emissions.
Supplement
C
(Edition
97-01)
to
OET
Bulletin
65
(Edition
97-01).
Federal
Communications
Commission
Office
of
Engineering
&
Technology;
2014.
p.
16.
[2]
Gandhi
OP,
Lazzi
G,
Furse
CM.
Electromagnetic
absorption
in
the
human
head
and
neck
for
mobile
telephones
at
835
and
1900
MHz?
IEEE
Trans
Microw
Theory
Tech
1996;44(10):1884–97.
[3]
Wiart
J,
Hadjem
A,
Wong
MF,
Bloch
I.
Analysis
of
RF
expo-
sure
in
the
head
tissues
of
children
and
adults.
Phys
Med
Biol
2008;53(13):3681–95.
[4]
Kuster
N.
Past,
current,
and
future
research
on
the
exposure
of
chil-
dren.
Foundation
for
Research
on
Information
Technology
in
Society
(IT’IS),
Foundation
Internal
Report;
2009.
http://www1.itis.ethz.
ch/index/index
itis.html
[accessed
08.12.10].
[5]
Christ
A,
Gosselin
M-C,
Christopoulou
M,
Kuhn
S,
Kuster
N.
Age-
dependent
tissue-specific
exposure
of
cell
phone
users.
Phys
Med
Biol
2010;55:1767–83.
[6]
Baan
R,
Grosse
Y,
Lauby-Secretan
B,
El
Ghissassi
F,
Bouvard
V,
Benbrahim-Tallaa
L,
et
al.
Carcinogenicity
of
radiofrequency
electro-
magnetic
fields.
Lancet
Oncol
2011;12(July
(7)):624–6.
[7]
Wikipedia.
List
of
IARC
Group
2B
carcinogens;
2014.
http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/List
of
IARC
Group
2B
carcinogens
[accessed
10.03.14].
[8]
Sadetzki
S,
Chetrit
A,
Freedman
L,
Stovall
M,
Modan
B,
Novikov
Ib.
Long-term
follow-up
for
brain
tumor
development
after
child-
hood
exposure
to
ionizing
radiation
for
Tinea
capitis.
Radiat
Res
2005;163:424–32.
[9]
Hardell,
Carlberg.
Mobile
phones,
cordless
phones
and
the
risk
for
brain
tumours.
Int
J
Oncol
2009;35(July
(1)):5–17.
[10]
Hegmann
KT,
Fraser
AM,
Keaney
RP,
Moser
SE,
Nilasena
DS,
Sedlars
M,
et
al.
The
effect
of
age
at
smoking
initiation
on
lung
cancer
risk.
Epidemiology
1993;4(September
(5)):444–8.
[11]
IEEE
standard
for
safety
levels
with
respect
to
human
exposure
to
radio
frequency
electromagnetic
fields,
3
kHz
to
300
GHz.
The
Insti-
tute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers,
Inc.;
1991.
[12]
NCRP
REPORT
No.
86,
Biological
Effects
and
Exposure
Criteria
for
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
fields.
Recommendations
of
the

Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Morgan
LL,
et
al.
Why
children
absorb
more
microwave
radiation
than
adults:
The
consequences.
J
Microsc
Ultrastruct
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmau.2014.06.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
JMAU-40;
No.
of
Pages
8
8
L.L.
Morgan
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Microscopy
and
Ultrastructure
xxx
(2014)
xxx–xxx
National
Council
on
Radiation
Protection
and
Measurements,
Issued
April
2;
1986.
[13]
ICNIRP
Guidelines.
Guidelines
for
limiting
exposure
to
time-varying
electric,
magnetic,
and
electromagnetic
fields
(up
to
300
GHz).
Inter-
national
Commission
on
Non-Ionizing
Radiation
Protection.
Health
Phys
1998;74(April
(4)):494–522.
[14]
Non-ionizing
radiation.
Part
2:
Radiofrequency
electromagnetic
fields,
vol.
102.
Lyon,
France:
International
Agency
for
Research
on
Cancer;
2013.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/
index.php
[accessed
10.03.14].
[15]
Cleveland
Jr
RF,
Sylvar
DM,
Ulcek
JL.
Federal
Communications
Com-
mission,
Office
of
Engineering
&
Technology,
Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Elec-
tromagnetic
Fields
OET
Bulletin
65,
Edition
97-01,
August;
1997.
p.
42.
[16]
Cleveland
Jr
RF,
Sylvar
DM,
Ulcek
JL.
Federal
Communications
Com-
mission,
Office
of
Engineering
&
Technology,
Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Elec-
tromagnetic
Fields
OET
Bulletin
65,
Edition
97-01,
August;
1997.
p.
15.
[17]
Gandhi
OP,
Morgan
LL,
de
Salles
AA,
Han
YY,
Herberman
RB,
Davis
DL.
Exposure
limits:
the
underestimation
of
absorbed
cell
phone
radia-
tion,
especially
in
children.
Electromagn
Biol
Med
2012;31(March
(1)):34–51.
[18]
Aldad
TS,
Gan
G,
Xiao-Bing
G,
Hugh
S,
Taylor
HS.
Fetal
radiofrequency
radiation
exposure
from
800–1900
MHz-rated
cellular
telephones
affects
neurodevelopment
and
behavior
in
mice.
Sci
Rep
2012;2:312.
[19]
Odaci
E,
Bas
O,
Kaplan
K.
Effects
of
prenatal
exposure
to
a
900
MHz
electromagnetic
field
on
the
dentate
gyrus
of
rats:
a
stereological
and
histopathological
study.
Brain
Res
2008;1238(October):224–9.
[20]
Zhu
Y,
Gao
F,
Yang
X,
Shen
H,
Liu
W.
The
effect
of
microwave
emission
from
mobile
phones
on
neuron
survival
in
rat
central
nervous
system.
Prog
Electromagn
Res
2008;82:287–98.
[21]
Rathus
SA.
Childhood
voyages
in
development.
5th
ed.
Belmont,
CA,
USA:
Publisher
Wadsworth;
2014.
[22]
Baranski
S.
Histological
and
histochemical
effects
of
microwave
irra-
diation
on
the
central
nervous
system
of
rabbits
and
guinea
pigs.
Am
J
Physiol
Med
1972;51:182–90.
[23]
Switzer
WG,
Mitchell
DS.
Long-term
effects
of
2.45
GHz
radiation
on
the
ultrastructure
of
the
cerebral
cortex
and
hematologic
profiles
of
rats.
Radio
Sci
1977;12:287–93.
[24]
Aydin
D,
Feychting
M,
Schüz
J,
Tynes
T,
Andersen
TV,
Schmidt
LS,
et
al.
Mobile
phone
use
and
brain
tumors
in
children
and
adolescents:
a
multicenter
case–control
study.
J
Natl
Cancer
Inst
2011;103(August
(16)):1264–76.
[25]
Byun
Y-H,
Ha
M,
Kwon
H-J,
Hong
Y-C,
Leem
J-H,
Sakong
J,
et
al.
Mobile
phone
use,
blood
lead
levels,
and
attention
deficit
hyperactiv-
ity
symptoms
in
children:
a
longitudinal
study.
PLOS
ONE
2013;8(3).
[26]
Salford
LG,
Brun
AE,
Eberhardt
JL,
Mamlgren
L,
Persson
BR.
Nerve
cell
damage
in
mammalian
brain
after
exposure
to
microwaves
from
GSM
mobile
phones.
Environ
Health
Perspect
2003;111(June
(7)):881–3.
[27]
Eberhardt
JL,
Persson
BR,
Brun
AE,
Salford
LG,
Malmgren
LO.
Blood–brain
barrier
permeability
and
nerve
cell
damage
in
rat
brain
14
and
28
days
after
exposure
to
microwaves
from
GSM
mobile
phones.
Electromagn
Biol
Med
2008;27(3):215–29.
[28]
Nittby
H,
Grafström
G,
Eberhardt
JL,
Malmgren
L,
Brun
A,
Persson
BR,
et
al.
Radiofrequency
and
extremely
low-frequency
electromag-
netic
field
effects
on
the
blood–brain
barrier.
Electromagn
Biol
Med
2008;27(2):103–26.
[29]
West
JG,
Kapoor
NS,
Liao
SY,
Chen
JW,
Bailey
L,
Nagourney
RA.
Case
report,
multifocal
breast
cancer
in
young
women
with
prolonged
contact
between
their
breasts
and
their
cellular
phones.
Case
Rep
Med
2013;2013:354682.
[30]
Duan
Y,
Zhang
HZ,
Bu
RF.
Correlation
between
cellular
phone
use
and
epithelial
parotid
gland
malignancies.
Int
J
Oral
Maxillofac
Surg
2011;40(September
(9)):966–72.
[31]
Sadetzki
S,
Chetrit
A,
Jarus-Hakak
A,
Cardis
E,
Deutch
Y,
Duvde-
vani
S.
Cellular
phone
use
and
risk
of
benign
and
malignant
parotid
gland
tumors—a
nationwide
case–control
study.
Am
J
Epidemiol
2008;167(February
(4)):457–67.
[32]
Czerninski
R,
Zini
A,
Sgan-Cohen
HD.
Risk
of
parotid
malig-
nant
tumors
in
Israel
(1970–2006).
Epidemiology
2011;22(January
(1)):130–1.
[33]
Even
D.
Israeli
study
sees
link
between
oral
cancer,
cell
phones.
July
16;
2009.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-
study-sees-link-between-oral-cancer-cell-phones-1.280073
[accessed
15.03.15].
[34]
Fejes
I,
Závaczki
Z,
Szöllosi
J,
Koloszár
S,
Daru
J,
Kovács
L,
et
al.
Is
there
a
relationship
between
cell
phone
use
and
semen
quality?
Arch
Androl
2005;51:385–93.
[35]
Agarwal
A,
Deepinder
F,
Sharma
RK,
Ranga
G,
Li
J.
Effect
of
cell
phone
usage
on
semen
analysis
in
men
attending
infertility
clinic:
an
obser-
vational
study.
Fertil
Steril
2008;89(January
(1)):124–8.
[36]
Salama
N,
Kishimoto
T,
Kanayama
HO.
Effects
of
exposure
to
a
mobile
phone
on
testicular
function
and
structure
in
adult
rabbit.
Int
J
Androl
2010;33(February
(1)):88–94.
[37]
De
Iuliis
GN,
Newey
RJ,
King
BV,
Aitken
RJ.
Mobile
phone
radia-
tion
induces
reactive
oxygen
species
production
and
DNA
damage
in
human
spermatozoa
in
vitro.
PLoS
ONE
2009;4(July
(7)).
[38]
Glantz
SA.
Primer
of
biostatistics.
7th
ed.
San
Francisco:
The
McGraw
Hill
Companies;
2012.
p.
247.
[39]
Avenda˜
no
C,
Mata
A,
Sanchez-Sarmiento
CA,
Doncel
GF.
Use
of
laptop
computers
connected
to
internet
through
Wi-Fi
decreases
human
sperm
motility
and
increases
sperm
DNA
fragmentation.
Fertil
Steril
2012;97(January
(1)),
39–45.e2.
[40]
SadamoriN.,
Shibata
S,
Mine
M,
Miyazaki
H,
Miyake
H,
Kurihara
M,
et
al.
Incidence
of
intracranial
meningiomas
in
Nagasaki
atomic-
bomb
survivors.
Int
J
Cancer
1996;67:318–22.
[41]
IEEE
Std
1528TM-2003.
IEEE
Recommended
Practice
for
Determin-
ing
the
Peak
Spatial-Average
Specific
Absorption
Rate
(SAR)
in
the
Human
Head
from
Wireless
Communications
Devices:
Measurement
Techniques,
19
December.
The
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers,
Inc.;
2003.
p.
55.
[42]
Zada
G,
Bond
AE,
Wang
YP,
Giannotta
SL,
Deapen
D.
Incidence
trends
in
the
anatomic
location
of
primary
malignant
brain
tumors
in
the
United
States:
1992–2006.
World
Neurosurg
2012;77(March–April
(3–4)):518–24.
[43]
Danish
Cancer
Registry
Press
Release
2
Nov.
2012
Google
trans-
lation
English
Translation;
2012.
http://www.cancer.dk/Nyheder/
nyhedsartikler/2012kv4/Kraftig+stigning+i+hjernesvulster.htm
[accessed
13.03.14].
[44]
Dobes
M,
Khurana
VG,
Shadbolt
B,
Jain
S,
Smith
SF,
Smee
R,
et
al.
A
multicenter
study
of
primary
brain
tumor
incidence
in
Australia
(2000–2008).
Neuro
Oncol
2011;13(7):783–90.
[45]
Dossey
L.
FOMO,
digital
dementia,
and
our
dangerous
experiment.
Explore
J
Sci
Heal
2014;10(March
(2)):69–73.
[46]
Przybylski
AK,
Murayama
K,
DeHaan
CR,
Gladwell
V.
Motivational,
emotional,
and
behavioral
correlates
of
fear
of
missing
out.
Comput
Hum
Behav
2013;29(4):1841–8.