Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Document Retracted from IEEE Xplore®
It was recommended and agreed upon by the authors and the Editor-in-Chief that the article:
"Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe
Are We?"
by Naren, A. Elhence, V. Chamola and M. Guizani
in IEEE Access, vol. 8, 2020, pp. 42980-43000
be retracted from the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. The article should not be used for research or
citation because of errors found in the analysis reported in this article, resulting in inaccurate
results and conclusions.
We regret any inconvenience.
SPECIAL SECTION ON ANTENNA AND PROPAGATION FOR 5G AND BEYOND
Received January 11, 2020, accepted January 21, 2020, date of publication February 27, 2020, date of current version March 12, 2020.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976434
Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi
and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
NAREN 1, ANUBHAV ELHENCE 1, VINAY CHAMOLA 1,
AND MOHSEN GUIZANI 2, (Fellow, IEEE)
1Department of EEE, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani 333031, India
2Department of Computer Science, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
Corresponding author: Mohsen Guizani (mguizani@ieee.org)
This work was supported by the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of The Qatar Foundation) under Grant NPRP10-1205-160012.
ABSTRACT The electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted out of wireless communication modules in
various IoT devices (especially used for healthcare applications due to their close proximity to the body) have
been identified by researchers as biologically hazardous to humans as well as other living beings. Different
countries have different regulations to limit the radiation density levels caused by these devices. The radiation
absorbed by an individual depends on various factors such as the device they use, the proximity of use,
the type of antenna, the relative orientation of the antenna on the device, and many more. Several standards
exist which have tried to quantify the radiation levels and come up with safe limits of EMR absorption
to prevent human harm. In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios
using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which
are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common
devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones,
smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation
measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so detailed that it can also be utilized by the
general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary
of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure. We also discuss
some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to
reduce the risk of EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the
insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks.
INDEX TERMS EMR, wireless, safety, standards, health, protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
The ever-increasing adoption of wireless communication has
created a very complex situation of electromagnetic radia-
tion (EMR) exposure. With new technologies such as 5G,
the number of devices will increase exponentially and operate
on a broader frequency spectrum. With this upcoming tech-
nology, the society will be more connected than ever before,
and would witness huge economic growth. However, it is very
important to identify beforehand, if any, harmful or adverse
effects resulting from increased exposure of human beings.
Currently, there are about 15 billion wireless local area net-
work (WLAN) devices ranging from Wi-Fi routers to Internet
of Things (IoT) devices [1], 9 billion mobile connections,
and about 67% of the world population currently uses mobile
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Qammer Hussain Abbasi .
phones [2]. Any unidentified or unaddressed health hazard
due to the use of these devices or exposure to their radiation
could impact the health of people globally.
Several organizations at both national and international
levels have established guidelines for limiting EMR exposure
in residential as well as occupational scenarios. Scientific
research on EMR exposure-related biological effects began
as early as the 1940s [3], but gained significant pace in the
early 2000s with the widespread increase of EMR exposure
due to cellular communications.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) has issued regulatory limits on EMR
exposure for the general public and workers. ICNIRP’s
1998 guidelines have been adopted by most of the coun-
tries in the world today [4]. But these limits only take into
account the thermal effects of EMR and dismiss evidence
on the biological effects of EMR exposure as unclear or
42980 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 1. Ionizing and Non-ionizing radiation sources and there frequency bands.
unsatisfactory findings. In addition, there are several
standards prescribed by medical bodies such as the Build-
ing Biology, BioInitiative, and Austrian Medical Association
Standards. These limits have been arrived at after extensive
scientific research of thermal, non-thermal, chronic exposure,
and biological effects carried out by health experts from
across the world. On comparing these limits with those pre-
scribed by the ICNIRP, it can be seen that the limits pre-
scribed by the medical bodies are several orders of magnitude
lower than those prescribed by the ICNIRP. Therefore, a clear
understanding of the differences between these limits, and an
assessment of the current exposure levels in accordance with
both kinds of exposure limits mentioned above is the need of
the hour.
In the literature, many research studies have analyzed
health hazards due to EMR exposure [5]. Numerous adverse
health conditions such as cancer, infertility, damage to
the auditory system, alteration of blood cells and blood
flow, mental, cognitive and sleep disorders, and impaired
childhood development have been identified in various stud-
ies. We have explored the literature in this area and presented
a section describing various health risks associated with EMR
exposure.
The major contributions of this paper are highlighted
below.
•We analyse radiation levels of commonly used cellular,
Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi devices to estimate how safe they
are to human beings in terms of radiation.
•The procedure followed in this work serves as a tutorial
for the general public who can arrive at a good esti-
mate of their radiation exposure with minimal technical
knowledge or expertise.
•We review several works which have identified vari-
ous health hazards resulting from EMR exposure and
presents the findings to highlight dangers of excessive
EMR exposure.
•Then, we suggest techniques for people as well as
societies/organizations to protect themselves from
excessive EMR exposure and also presents ways to
minimize ambient EMR levels in different environments
like schools, hospitals, and homes.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
we discuss the nature of EMR used in wireless communi-
cation devices and the need to analyze EMR from various
common sources such as mobile phones, laptops and other
cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and IoT devices. In Section III,
we discuss a few important standards and guidelines for
EMR exposure which have been determined by scientific
organizations/commissions to avoid EMR related health haz-
ards in humans. In Section IV, we present our findings on
the radiation levels present in common use cases of popular
devices. In section V, we summarize the important health
hazards of EMR exposure that have been documented and
reported. In section VI, we describe some measures to protect
ourselves from EMR and also discuss ways to minimize
ambient EMR in public places. In section VII, we recom-
mend some proactive prevention techniques which can be
immediately adopted at both individual and societal levels to
prevent harmful EMR exposure. In section VIII, we discuss
our findings from section IV in light of sections II, III, V and
VI. We finally conclude the paper in section IX.
II. PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION
A. IONIZING AND NON IONIZING RADIATION
When referring to interaction of EMR with biological
systems, EMR is categorized into two types: ionizing and
non-ionizing. About 60% of the human body is water. Based
on whether the incoming radiation is high enough to break the
chemical bonds of water or not, it is categorized as ionizing
radiation (if it can break the bonds) and as non-ionizing radi-
ation (if it is not able to). Several classes of electromagnetic
waves are classified as non-ionizing and ionizing radiation as
depicted in Fig. 1. The frequencies we are interested in (radio
frequencies) fall in the category of non-ionizing radiation.
Some of the most common electronic/IoT devices which
people use today such as mobile-phones, smartphones, lap-
tops, wireless speakers and headphones, and smartwatches,
all communicate using radio frequencies. Broadly, they can
be categorized into devices which use cellular, Wi-Fi or
Bluetooth technology as shown in Fig. 2. This kind of radi-
ation has been linked with various adverse health effects in
human beings. The severity of these effects varies with the
power of radiation, distance of the radiation source, the kind
of device, the type of antenna used in the device, the modu-
lation technique used in the communication and the duration
of exposure.
Electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range 20 KHz
- 300 GHz is referred to as radio frequency (RF) radiation.
Most of the commonly used communication services such
as FM radio, television broadcast, satellite, cellular, Global
VOLUME 8, 2020 42981
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 2. Most common sources of EMR exposure.
TABLE 1. Common wireless communication technologies.
Positioning System (GPS), Wi-Fi and Bluetooth all lie in this
frequency range.
B. MOTIVATION
An antenna is a transducer which converts AC. electric
currents flowing in metal conductors to radio frequency
electromagnetic waves and vice-versa. Antennas are used in
all wireless radio frequency communication devices. During
transmission, AC. electric current is supplied to the antenna’s
terminals, which induces the antenna to radiate EMR waves
in the radio frequency range. During reception, the antenna
intercepts radio waves to generate an AC. electric current at
its terminals, which is applied to a receiver before amplifica-
tion. In the latest smartphones which are in use today, there
are several antennas for different communication purposes
such as cellular, GPS, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Table 1lists the
most commonly used wireless technologies at present and
their frequency ranges. Fig. 3(a) shows the usage of multiple
antennas in a smartphone. Similarly Fig. 3(b), Fig. 3(c) and
Fig. 3(d) show the antennas used in the Jio-Fi 4G Hotspot,
the Wi-Fi antennas present in a laptop, and the Bluetooth
antenna used in a wireless earphone respectively.
A cell phone communicates wirelessly with a cellular base
station that is typically hundreds of meters away. The anten-
nas on a mobile phone are not directive, i.e, they transmit
and receive EMR roughly in all directions. Their radiation
pattern is roughly omni-directional. This enables good com-
munication, because the user does not necessarily orient the
phone in the direction of the cell tower. These antennas ensure
the propagation of the electromagnetic waves to the, enabling
communication. The omni-directional nature of these anten-
nas can cause radiation energy to dissipate in all directions.
But this means that a mobile phone emits radiation directly
into the head of the user. Moreover, when the phone is sit-
uated in areas with weak reception such as the far end of
its closest cell tower or in the basement of a building, its
radiation increases by several magnitudes in order to ensure
good connection with the cellular base station.
Laptops communicate with both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
technology, but Wi-Fi is used more extensively to connect
to wireless routers located nearby. Just as for mobile-phones,
the laptop antennas are designed to ensure good connection
regardless of its orientation or position in a Wi-Fi zone.
Hence, even laptop Wi-Fi antennas are roughly omnidirec-
tional in nature. Laptops are mostly used either on the lap or
on a desk. When used on the lap, severe amounts of radiation
directly enter the legs, groin and torso region. Moreoever,
since the antenna is located very close to the body, the mag-
nitude of radiation is extremely high. When used on desks or
tables, the face of the user directly faces the antenna. Most
laptops have their antennas located at the top of the display.
Laptops are used for several hours at a time in very close
proximity and hence raise more concern than mobile phones
which may be held next to the ears for just a few minutes
during a call.
In the last few years, the popularity of Bluetooth head-
phones and earphones have increased drastically. Some of
these earphones such as the one shown in Fig. 3(c) have the
antenna extremely close to the ear. These devices are worn
by users almost throughout the day and kept active almost
continuously. In addition to the radiation from the earphone
itself, the connected smartphone or mobile phone, kept in the
pocket also emits Bluetooth radiation continuously.
For a common user, it is very difficult to measure the
three-dimensional radiation pattern to estimate his own safety
in regards to EMR exposure. Therefore, in this document we
analyze the radiation levels from the most common sources to
and scenarios of EMR exposure. We then correlate our find-
ings with a few well-defined, scientifically and holistically
determined safety limits.
III. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION
Ideally, it is expected that a well defined, safe exposure limit
would apply to people of all countries. But, there are striking
differences that arise due to thermal effects, non-thermal
42982 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 3. Antennas in a smartphone.
health effects, and precautionary measures considered in
determining the limits. Different countries across the world
adopt different RF EMR exposure limits based on these
considerations. For example, the United States adopts limits
based only on thermal effects. Russia and China have taken
non-thermal effects into account while determining their stan-
dards. Switzerland and Italy have taken precautionary mea-
sures to account for any adverse health effects which may be
discovered in the future, and therefore adopt exposure limits
even below non-thermal effects [6]. Damage arising from
only tissue heating is considered while determining thermal
exposure limits. Such safety limits are prepared based on the
assumption that it is sufficient to consider only heating effects
while trying to minimize harm to the human body. But in the
last few decades, it has been well established that biological
and adverse health effects occur at radiation levels which
are too low to cause any heating, sometimes several hundred
thousand times lower [7].
In this section, we discuss the guidelines on exposure
limits prescribed by the ICNIRP, Building Biology, the Aus-
trian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative. The ICNIRP
guidelines is the most widely adopted guidelines in the world
at present, being adopted by around 50 countries. But it only
takes into account the thermal effects of EMR, while the
standards prescribed by Building Biology, Austrian Medical
Association, and the BioInitiative take into account ther-
mal, non-thermal, chronic exposure, and biological effects of
EMR as well. In this section, we present a comprehensive
summary of the above-mentioned guidelines and standards
in light of the requirement of this work, i.e., electromagnetic
radiation due to cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth technologies.
A. ICNIRP
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) is an international commission which
specializes in non-ionizing radiation protection. The EMR
exposure limits of more than 50 countries in the world
today [8] are based on ICNIRP’s 1998 publication [9]. This
document provides different guidelines for occupationally
exposed individuals and members of the general public.
They have prescribed two types of restrictions, namely Basic
Restrictions and Reference levels. Basic Restrictions are dif-
ficult to measure, especially for people who are not experts in
the field of antennas and do not have access to sophisticated
experimental setups. They require sophisticated experimental
setups and costly equipment. But, Reference levels can be
easily measured using simple handheld RF radiation meters.
Here, we only consider the Reference levels for general public
VOLUME 8, 2020 42983
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
TABLE 2. ICNIRP reference values for general public.
exposure in the frequency ranges of the wireless technologies
considered in this work. The Reference levels at these fre-
quencies for general public exposure are listed below, where
fis the frequency of the concerned EMR source. Table 2lists
the reference values (in µW/m2) calculated for some wireless
technologies.
400-2000 MHz :f/200 µW/m2
2-300 GHz :10 µW/m2
B. BUILDING BIOLOGY STANDARD
The Building Biology Standard [10] takes into account the
physical, chemical and biological hazards present places
where people work, live and sleep. It considers the influence
of various factors such as different electric fields, magnetic
fields, waves, radiation, indoor toxins, pollutants, fungi bac-
teria and allergens. Radio Frequency EMR is also included
and addressed as a critical influence in their standard. It aims
to enable an individual to identify, minimize and avoid all
such factors in their own life without any need sophisticated
equipment or scientific expertise.
Their evaluation guidelines are intended to be used in areas
where there is risk of repeated long term-exposure such as
sleeping and resting areas. Their guidelines are precautionary
in nature and define four levels of concern which are listed
below.
1) Extreme Concern: The values categorized under
extreme concern require an immediate attention and
swift correction. Short term exposures to radiation
under this category will cause problems like headache,
nausea, dizziness while long term exposures can lead
to more serious diseases as discussed in section VI.
2) Severe Concern: The radiation values coming under
this category are tagged as unacceptable from the point
of view of building biology and they must be addressed.
These values are unnatural for human beings. Chronic
exposures to these radiation levels can sow the seeds of
future health diseases.
3) Slight Concern: This is a precautionary category as
radiation levels categorized under slight concern can
affect sensitive population like pregnant women, small
children and unhealthy people.
4) No Concern: This category ensures that the radiation
levels are safe and will not cause any health hazard.
The radiation levels in upper range of this category
signify the background radiation level of our modern
living environment which is inevitable in the current
society.
In the case of RF EMR, the quantity to be measured is power
density in the units of µW/m2. Power densities (in µW/m2)
less than 0.1 indicate no concern, between 0.1 and 10 indicate
slight concern, 10 - 1000 indicate severe concern and values
greater than 1000 indicate extreme concern.
No concern : ≤ 1µW/m2
Slight concern :1−10µW/m2
Severe concern :10 −1000µW/m2
Extreme concern : ≥ 1000µW/m2
According to the standard, the values mentioned above refer
to peak measurements and are applicable to single RF sources
such as GSM, UMTS, WiMAX, TETRA, Radio, Television,
DECT cordless phone technology and WLAN except radar
signals.
The standard treats pulsed or periodic signals (such as
mobile phone technology, DECT, WLAN and digital broad-
casting) as more critical sources and recommends that they
should be assessed more seriously, especially in the higher
concern ranges. Non pulsed and non periodic signals such
as F.M, short, medium, long wave and analog broadcasting
can be addressed more generously, especially in the lower
concern ranges.
The exposure limits prescribed by the medical associations
of many other countries are based on the Building Biology
Standard. For example, the guidelines prescribed by the Aus-
trian Medical Association (AMA) [11] suggest the same
limits mentioned above as ‘Within normal limits’, ‘Slightly
above normal’, ‘Far above normal’ and ‘Very far above
normal’.
C. BIOINITIATIVE STANDARDS
The BioInitiative report [11] is the work of renowned health
professionals and many scientists on the potential hazards
of exposure to EMR arising from the use of wireless tech-
nologies. The first edition of the BioInitiative report was
42984 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
released in 2007 and then updated in 2012. This report
includes an extensive documentation of adverse biological
health effects on both general and sensitive populations
because of exposure to EMR. Their focus is primarily on
chronic exposure to low frequency, extremely low frequency
and radiofrequency EMR fields. BioInitiative claims to be
an independent body, comprising of medically acclaimed
professionals who believe that deployment of wireless tech-
nology always happens before the health risks are assessed.
This report urges the necessity to reconsider the current sit-
uation regarding excessive use of wireless communication
technology.
The following is a summary of the latest BioInitiative stan-
dards. The standard justifies the cumulative outdoor RF EMR
limit to be reduced from 1000 µW/m2to just a few µW/m2.
Based on several studies related to health effects caused by
mobile phone and base station radiation, the benchmark for
‘lowest observed effect level’ was found to be 30 µW/m2.
Considering the higher electrosensitivity of children, and a
safeguard for chronic and long term exposures, the above
mentioned value of 30 µW/m2is reduced by 10 times to set
the precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed
RF Radiation between 3 and 6 µW/m2. The BioInitiative
report also states that this level is not definite, i.e., based on
information from newer studies, it may decrease or increase
this level.
IV. RESULTS
With the advent of technology, there are more wireless
devices today than ever before, such as LTE phones, 3G
phones, GSM and CDMA phones, wireless speakers, smart-
watches, wireless earphones, portable Wi-Fi routers, wire-
less mice and keyboards, voice-controlled smart speakers
like Alexa, health monitoring devices, etc. In places such as
universities, offices and homes, multiple devices are commu-
nicating using different technologies at a given time. Note
that a majority of devices communicate either using Wi-Fi,
Bluetooth or cellular technology. Therefore we have inves-
tigated the power flux densities (PFD) of the EMR emitted
from specific devices which are used very extensively in our
day to day life.
A. METHODOLOGY
For our measurements, we have used the HF32D RF
Analyzer by Gigahertz Solution which is a very easy to use
RF radiation meter. This detector covers frequencies from
800MHz to 2.7GHz and therefore can be used to measure
4G/LTE, UMTS/3G, GSM, GPS, Radar, WLAN (Wi-Fi),
and Bluetooth radiation densities. The device works on the
principle of Geiger counter effect by deploying three log
periodic antennas in three orthogonal directions.
In order to avoid disturbances from low-frequency EMR
sources, the HF32D RF Analyzer suppresses sub 800MHz
frequencies. The range and signal values of these devices are
tuned to assess the EMR in accordance with the Building
Biology Standards discussed in section III-B. If the power
density exceeds the designated range, an attenuator DG20 is
used which increases the range by a factor of 100.
To execute the process of measurement taking, the EMR
source devices were placed along the length of a measuring
tape. The RF Analyzer was held from its rear end to avoid
any reflections of EMR from the hand of the device holder.
To accurately evaluate the radiation of the test device,the
following procedure was followed:
•Step 1: The area around the test device was probed with
RF Analyzer approximately 50 cm from the test device
to obtain the direction with the highest level of radiation.
•Step 2: Next, the direction of the RF Analyzer was
fixed at the point where the highest radiation level was
recorded, and then the analyzer was rotated along it’s
longitudinal axis to maximize the reading of the instru-
ment. This ensured that the antenna of the RF Analyzer
was aligned with the plane of polarization of the EMR
source.
•Step 3: Now, the relative orientation of the RF Analyzer
and the test device was fixed and then the two devices
were moved such that the RF Analyzer was placed on
the measuring tape with it’s direction of antenna parallel
to the measuring tape, and it’s base lying flat on the plane
of the measuring tape.
•Step 4: For the remaining part, the test device was fixed
at the beginning of the measuring tape in the orientation
as obtained after step 3. If they were two devices being
used in a particular scenario, the same steps were per-
formed to fix the second device at the other end of the
measuring tape.
•Step 5: Finally, the relative distance between the RF
Analyzer and the test device was varied by shifting the
RF Analyzer in fixed steps along the measuring tape
to record the power flux density values. Let’s call this
relative orientation as ‘x’ and the corresponding values
of power flux density obtained as Px. Then by changing
the orientation of the antenna to its orthogonal directions
‘y’ and ‘z’ we obtained two more sets of values, Py
and Pzrespectively at the same positions where Pxwas
recorded.
Finally, the total magnitude of the power density at each
position was calculated using equation 1where Px,Pyand Pz
represent the power density levels received by the antennas
oriented in the ‘x’, ‘y’ and ‘z’ orientation respectively.
Pr=qP2
x+P2
y+P2
z(1)
An attenuator (DG20) was used with the RF Analyzer
whenever the measured power density was beyond
2000µW/m2. The attenuator increases the range of the
analyzer by a factor of 100.
For our investigation, we devised few scenarios based
on frequently encountered situations in the day to day life
of a normal user. The testing was done in an open field
free from any sources of electromagnetic radiation as shown
in Fig 4.
VOLUME 8, 2020 42985
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 4. The location for testing was an open field with ambient Power
Flux Density less than 5 µW/m2.
TABLE 3. Experimental setup for cellular devices.
B. EMR DUE TO CELLULAR DEVICES
Table 3 shows schematics of the experimental setups used for
analysing cellular devices. Two cases were considered: Phone
calls on 2G/3G/4G networks and data streaming on 3G/4G
networks.
1) 2G/3G/4G PHONE CALL
The power flux density getting emitted from the mobile
device which is put on call is recorded according to the
above procedure. All other communication channels from
the device such as Bluetooth, infrared, Wi-Fi and GPS were
turned off. The results are plotted in Fig. 5(a).
In Fig. 5(a), we can see that the same smartphone emits
most radiation on the 3G network, second highest on 2G
network and least on the 4G network at almost all dis-
tances. While performing a phone call, at a very close range,
the PFD measured is 43112, 38907 and 18172 µW/m2on
3G, 2G and 4G networks respectively. The close range radi-
ation in all three cases is above 1,000 µW/m2which is
classified as ‘extreme concern’ according to the Building
FIGURE 5. EMR results pertaining to cellular devices.
Biology Standards and ‘very far above normal’ according to
the AMA standards. The radiation is around 10,000 times
higher than the precautionary action level recommended by
the BioInitiative Guidelines (3 - 6 µW/m2). But these values
are certainly within the ICNIRP reference values for general
public exposure which are between 9,500,000 µW/m2for 2G
networks and 10,000,000 µW/m2for 3G and 4G networks.
This implies that phone calls performed on 2G, 3G and 4G
devices are safe in terms of thermal effects, i.e., a user will not
face any health issues arising from tissue heating, but he/she is
certainly at risk of developing health issues from non-thermal,
chronic exposure and biological effects.
Near the test location, it was found that the nearest 2G,
3G and 4G BSs were all located on the same cell tower.
Therefore, the observation of PFD levels (3G > 4G > 2G)
network cannot be attributed to farther 3G/4G BSs. To be
able to explain the exact reason for higher EMR emission of
the smartphone on 3G networks compared to 4G and 2G net-
works requires thorough analysis of 2G, 3G and 4G antennas
used on the smartphone, including their three-dimensional
42986 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
radiation patterns, and antenna configurations which are
beyond the scope of this work.
At about 50cm away from the phone, the radiation level
drops below 1,000 µW/m2which comes in the next category
of ‘severe concern’ and ‘far above normal’. Therefore the use
of wired handsfree earphones/headphones is recommended
which generally have a standard length of 1.2m, and by
keeping the phone at about 1 mfrom the user, a good level
of safety can be achieved.
2) 3G/4G DATA STREAMING
The mobile device used for this setup was Samsung Galaxy
M30. To ensure continuous data transmission from the cell
tower to the smartphone, a long HD video was streamed
on the phone. The measured power flux density values are
plotted in Fig. 5(b).
From Fig. 5(b), it is evident that the PFD of a 4G network
is lesser than 3G networks at all distances during data trans-
fers. At very close distances the radiation reaches 38798 and
29682 µW/m2for 3G and 4G networks respectively which
is a situation of ‘extreme concern’ or ‘very far above normal’
according to Building Biology standards. At a distance of
approximately 50 cm, the radiation in both cases drops down
to about 1,000 µW/m2which is categorized as a situation
of ‘severe concern’ or ‘far above normal’. Smartphones are
extensively used to stream videos and therefore it is rec-
ommended to keep the phone at least 50 cm away on a
table to ensure that the user is exposed to a PFD less than
1,000 µW/m2. Therefore, 4G networks must be preferred to
3G networks for data consumption. The scenario of 3G/4G
Data streaming is similar to the situation of 2G/3G/4G since
all the measured PFDs are well within the range of ICNIRP
reference values for general public exposure, but pose seri-
ous health risks when seen in accordance with the Building
Biology, AMA and BioInitiative standards.
3) 5G AND BEYOND
The testing of all the devices in this work has been carried out
in India, where 5G networks are projected to be deployed by
the year 2021. Therefore, measuring PFD levels for devices
communicating on 5G networks could not be included in
this work. 5G is set to use frequencies between 30 GHz and
100 GHz and would have a bandwidth of 60 GHz, which
is much higher than all previous generations. Owing to the
increased frequency, the wavelengths in 5G communications
will be in the order of few millimeters. Shorter wavelengths
travel shorter distances; therefore, 5G networks will be much
denser compared to existing networks. This necessitates that
more base stations be placed at much closer distances in order
to achieve good coverage. In 3G cellular networks, the density
of BSs is about 4-5 BSs/km2, and the area served by each
BS is large and therefore called a macrocell. In the case
of 4G (LTE) networks, the BS density is about 8-10 BSs/km2,
the coverage of each BS is lesser and referred to as a micro-
cell. However, in the case of 5G networks, the BS density
is expected to be increased to about 40-50 BSs/km2due to
the high propagation loss of millimeter wave technology.
The area served by each BS in 5G networks is very small and
is commonly called a small cell. The shorter millimeter waves
would also not be able to penetrate building walls effectively.
Therefore, the 5G architecture will separate indoor and out-
door networks, which means there will be separate access
nodes for indoor users. 5G BSs will also be installed on
street light poles meaning that people will be extremely close
to the BS antennas, whether they are indoors or outdoors.
In addition, 5G will also employ relay nodes that amplify
the wireless signals from the BSs before they reach the
device. The high data rate requirement of 5G, which is around
1000 times more than 4G, is expected to be solved by the
use of massive-MIMO, which incorporates a large number of
antennas. Thus, 5G networks contain Macrocells,microcells,
relays, street light access points and separate indoor nodes,
which operate simultaneously all the time.
Due to the extremely high density of BSs, street light
access points, separate indoor BSs, relays and Massive
MIMO technology employed in 5G, a person will be exposed
to very high levels of PFDs, whether he is indoors or outdoors,
or whether or not he is using any wireless devices in close
proximity. In other words, it may be suspected that even the
ambient PFD which a person is exposed to in most situations
throughout the day may fall under the category of ‘Severe
Concern’ according to the Building Biology Standard, ‘Far
above normal’ according to the AMA standards, and may
be higher than the precautionary action level recommended
by the BioInitiative Guidelines. If 5G networks are deployed
without careful analysis of expected exposure levels, almost
all people in the area of coverage may be exposed to danger-
ous levels of PFD, the outcomes of which, in the near future,
may turn out to be calamitous.
Currently, South Korea, United Kingdom, Germany, and
the United States are at the forefront of 5G network deploy-
ment, with several companies already providing 5G services
in these countries [12]. It is strongly suggested that a study
similar to the one in this paper be conducted in these coun-
tries, by correlating the findings with the standards mentioned
in section III in order to get a consistent view of radiation
exposure in 5G networks as compared to previous genera-
tions. This would provide much-needed insight and caution
to all countries that are yet to adopt 5G.
C. EMR DUE TO Wi-Fi DEVICES
Table 4 shows schematics of the experimental setups used for
analysing Wi-Fi use cases. Three cases were considered: Lap-
tops/Smartphones connected to Wi-FI routers, Wi-Fi Mobile
adhoc networks, and portable Wi-Fi hotspots/routers.
1) LAPTOP AND SMARTPHONE CONNECTED
TO Wi-Fi ROUTER
The laptop used for this setup was Lenovo Z51-70 which was
put on airplane mode with only Wi-Fi turned on. The laptop
was connected to the Wi-Fi Router operating at 2.4 GHz. The
devices were kept facing each other as shown in Table 4. The
power flux density readings are plotted in Fig. 6(a).
VOLUME 8, 2020 42987
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
TABLE 4. Experimental setup for Wi-Fi devices.
Comparing the scenario of a laptop and a smartphone
connected to a Wi-Fi router, it can be inferred from Fig. 6(a),
that the effect of the router on the PFD dominates until
a distance of about 1.7m from the router. Just next to the
router the PFD is about 60,000 µW/m2and drops below
100 at 1.7m from it. So, it advisable to always stay 1.7m
away from any Wi-Fi router, whether you are using a lap-
top or a smartphone. Up to a distance of about 100 cm,
the effect of the smartphone or laptop on the PFD dominates.
The PFD measured at close proximity of the smartphone is
5123 µW/m2and 12886 µW/m2in the case of a laptop,
which is more than 2 times greater than the latter. The reason
for this is attributed to PCIe antennas used in the laptop which
are designed for better connectivity in terms of range and data
speeds. Therefore, smartphones should always be preferred
in use cases where a laptop is not absolutely necessary. The
PFD in both cases drops below 1000 µW/m2at a distance
of approximately 50 cm. Although this PFD still falls in the
category of ‘severe concern’ or ‘far above normal’ according
to the AMA standards and is not to be considered safe, it is
still better than the category of ‘Extreme concern’ or ‘very far
above normal’. Thus, it is better to keep laptops on a table and
operate them from an arm’s distance or keep the smartphone
FIGURE 6. EMR results pertaining to Wi-Fi devices.
on a table while watching lengthy videos. Keeping a laptop on
the lap or keeping a smartphone connected to the router in the
42988 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
pocket for long durations would result in dangerous amounts
of radiation directly entering the body.
2) MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK
Two smartphones (Samsung Galaxy M30 and Redmi Note 5)
were connected using Wi-Fi Direct technology to form a
mobile Ad-hoc Network and a large file was transferred
between them. The power flux density readings along their
line of sight are plotted in Fig. 6(b).
A hotspot is created between two devices and is meant to
handle several connections at a time, which explains why the
PFD on the side of a sender (11819 µW/m2) is 5 times higher
than that of the receiver (2223 µW/m2) at a very close range
as shown in Fig. 6(b). At a distance of about 1 m from both the
devices, the PFD drops below 10 µW/m2which is a situation
of ‘slight concern’ or ‘slightly above normal’.
3) PORTABLE Wi-Fi ROUTER
Nowadays, portable Wi-Fi routers/hotspots which work on
the 4G network are very popular due to their portability,
ease of use with almost no setup time. In our measurement,
we used the portable Wi-Fi hotspot to measure the power flux
density emitted from the device upto 3 m in the direction of
maximum radiation. The readings are plotted in Fig. 6(c).
Although these devices are very easy to use and portable,
they emit a high amount of radiation 92237 µW/m2at very
close distances. This is because portable Wi-Fi routers are
connected to the 4G network and simultaneously function
as Wi-Fi routers capable of handling multiple connections at
a time. This is the highest reading we recorded among the
devices considered in this paper and falls in the category of
‘extreme concern’ or ‘very far above normal’. The PFD drops
below 1000 µW/m2at about 75 cm and below 10 µW/m2at
200 cm. By keeping the device about 200 cm or 2 m away
from the user, one can attain a situation of ‘slight concern’ or
‘slightly above normal’. From all the cases mentioned above,
the lowest radiation observed while accessing the internet
is in the case of a smartphone connected to a Wi-Fi router
followed by a laptop connected to the Wi-Fi router. It should
also be noted that accessing the internet via Wi-Fi routers
involves less radiation in general than accessing the internet
via cellular networks.
In terms of health risks, it can be concluded that Wi-Fi
technologies also pose serious health risks in terms of chronic
exposure, non-thermal, and biological effects of EMR but
will not lead to any tissue heating or health risks arising from
tissue heating.
D. EMR DUE TO BLUETOOTH DEVICES
1) BLUETOOTH SPEAKERS WITH AUDIO STREAM
Table 5 shows the schematic of the experimental setup used
for analysing a Bluetooth speaker. A Bluetooth speaker was
connected to a smartphone via Bluetooth wireless technology
kept 3m away from the speaker. The power flux density
between the two devices was measured and the results are
plotted in Fig. 7.
TABLE 5. Experimental setup for bluetooth speaker.
FIGURE 7. EMR results pertaining to Bluetooth speaker.
In Fig. 7, it can be seen that the highest reading just next
to the Bluetooth speaker is 487 µW/m2and just 152 µW/m2
near the smartphone. The PFD drops below 10 µW/m2at
about 50 cm from the smartphone and 25 cm from the speaker
which is a scenario of ‘slight concern’ or ‘slightly above
normal’. Therefore it is recommended to keep the smartphone
at least 50 cm away, and the speaker at least 25 cm away from
the user while playing the music.
2) BLUETOOTH EARPHONE
Wireless earphones are very quickly replacing wired
earphones due to ease of use. A subject was chosen to wear
Bluetooth earphones connected wirelessly to a smartphone
(Samsung galaxy M30) kept in his trouser’s right pocket.
A long audio file was played to ensure continuous communi-
cation between the devices. We measured power flux density
in different areas around the body as shown in Fig. 8.
3) SMARTWATCH CONNECTED WITH PHONE
Many people these days are using smartwatches to track
their health and routine. Therefore it becomes very important
to study whether the radiation coming from the usage of
smartwatch is adversely affecting users health or not. The
subject was made to wear a smartwatch on his right hand
which was connected to smartphone (Samsung Galaxy M30)
via Bluetooth, and the smartphone was kept in the subject’s
right trouser pocket. The power flux density was measured in
different areas around the body as shown in Fig. 9.
VOLUME 8, 2020 42989
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 8. EMR readings on different parts of the body while wearing
bluetooth earphones (in µW/m2).
FIGURE 9. EMR readings on different parts of the body while wearing a
smartwatch (in µW/m2).
Based on the values of PFD shown in Fig. 8, it can
be observed that the use of Bluetooth earphones heav-
ily impacts the head region with PFDs in the range of
4000 - 8000 µW/m2which comes under the category of
‘extreme concern’ or ‘very far above normal’. In the region of
the pocket where smartphone is kept, the PFD is 850 µW/m2
which is a situation of ‘severe concern’ or ‘far above normal’.
In the remaining regions, the PFD is not as significant. Thus,
it can be said using Bluetooth earphones puts a person at risk
of developing health issues related to non-thermal, chronic
exposure and biological effects in the head, shoulder and
pocket regions but is safe from any thermal effects of EMR
exposure. In the case of a Bluetooth smartwatch, the radiation
in the pocket region as well as near the smartwatch is about
1000 µW/m2(see Fig. 9) which can be considered a case of
‘Extreme concern’ and or ‘Very far above normal’. Therefore,
it is expected that a person may develop health issues arising
from non-thermal, chronic exposure and biological effects
only in the pocket and wrist regions. The observed radiation
levels indicate that a user is not in any risk of health issues
arising from thermal effects.
E. COLLECTIVE EXPOSURE
In most practical situations, there are several wireless devices
functioning simultaneously in the vicinity of a person, which
makes it becomes important to understand the collective radi-
ation exposure due to all these devices. Here, we consider
the case where a person is being exposed to EMR from
Wi-Fi, Cellular and Bluetooth devices, namely, a laptop,
smartphone, Wi-Fi router, smartwatch, Bluetooth earphones,
and a Bluetooth speaker. We have considered these devices
to ensure the best balance between worst-case exposure and
the most probable set of devices that a person may use.
In all practical situations, ambient EMR is always present.
Therefore, our readings were taken in a practical test location
where there was an ambient EMR of 5 µW/m2.
For our measurements, we consider a test subject using his
laptop kept on a desk, wearing a Bluetooth smartwatch on his
left hand, and neck-band type Bluetooth earphones around
his neck and also holding a smartphone to his right ear. The
laptop is connected to a Wi-Fi router kept 50 cm away on
the same table. The Bluetooth earphones are connected to the
smartphone and playing music. The smartphone is put on call
over the 4G network. A Bluetooth speaker is also kept on the
same desk, which is connected to the laptop. Fig. 10 shows
the test subject and the placement of various devices near him,
and Fig. 11 the measured PFDs at several points near the test
subject. At each test point, the orientation of the RF analyzer
was adjusted to ensure the maximum reading.
As can be seen in Fig. 11, the measured PFD exceeded
10,000 µW/m2in all points except the leg region where
a PFD of 500 µW/m2was recorded. This implies that the
EMR in the leg region comes under the category of ‘severe
Concern’ or ‘far above normal,’ while all other points showed
a PFD of more than 10,000 µW/m2and thus come under
the category of ‘extreme concern’ or ‘very far above normal.’
A PFD of 133,400 µW/m2near the Wi-Fi router, was the
highest reading recorded in our test scenario, indicating that
of all the devices, the Wi-Fi router was the most contributing
factor to the cumulative exposure. Therefore, it is highly
recommended to avoid keeping a Wi-Fi router on the table.
Due to the proximity of the mobile phone, the region near
the right ear is exposed to PFD of 36,700µW/m2. A PFD of
33,600µW/m2recorded near the left arm can be attributed
to the Wi-Fi router, smartwatch and laptop together. The PFD
recorded near the chest, torso and groin region: 12300,5700
42990 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
FIGURE 10. Placement of different devices in a collective exposure
scenario (in µW/m2).
FIGURE 11. EMR readings at different points of in a collective exposure
scenario (in µW/m2).
and 8700µW/m2respectively are all in the category of
‘extreme concern’ or ‘very far above normal.’ The exposure
in the groin region in a cumulative exposure scenario is sev-
eral times higher than the case considered in section IV-D.2,
and IV-D.3, where a smartphone was kept in the pocket
while being connected via Bluetooth to wireless earphones
and smartphones respectively. A PFD of 13,200µW/m2was
recorded near the keyboard of the laptop. This high reading
is attributed to the laptop’s Wi-Fi antennas, which are located
on top of the screen. Thus, a wired connection to the router
should always be preferred to Wi-Fi. Based on the above
discussion, it can be concluded that keeping many wireless
devices in close proximity is extremely dangerous in terms of
non-thermal, chronic exposure and biological health effects
but will not lead to any thermal effects since all measurements
are within the ICNIRP reference values for general public
exposure.
V. HEALTH RISKS AND HAZARDS OF EMR EXPOSURE
From released reports and published articles it is evident that
there is a strong correlation between distance from cell towers
and variety of EMR related health complaints. People who
lived in the vicinity of cell towers or base stations reported
health issues such as insomnia, fatigue, headaches and nau-
sea. Some of these people were even diagnosed with seri-
ous health diseases such as leukemia, Alzheimer’s, Autism,
ASD, neuro-psychiatric issues, brain tumors and breast can-
cer. BioInitiative report has compiled more than 1800 sci-
entific research articles which report serious impact on
human and animal bodies like abnormal gene transcriptions,
genotoxicity, DNA damage, chromatin condensation, loss of
DNA repair capacity, reduction in free-radical scavengers,
neurotoxicity, decreased sperm morphology and impaired
development of brain and cranial bone. In this section we have
summarized the adverse health effects of EMR exposure.
A. CANCER
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
an independently financed organisation classified
Radio-frequency RF EMR under Group 2B carcinogen which
means that there is a possibility that RF may be carcinogenic
to humans [13]. However, Hardell and Carlberg [14] claim
that there is clear evidence of cancer from long term, low level
exposure to pulsating and non-ionizing EMR. Their findings
warrant IARC to put RF EMR in Group 1: known carcinogen.
Another study by The National Toxicology Program (NTP)
conducted studies to evaluate potential health hazards and the
risk of cancer from RF Radiation. Mice and rats were used as
test subjects and were tested on exposure to RF Radiation
in the 2G and 3G spectrums (700 - 2700 MHz). This study
reported clear evidence of tumor in the hearts, brains and
adrenal glands of male rats [15].
Although, not many biophysical mechanisms have been
proposed regarding how RF Radiation leads to tumor causing
effects, the thermal exposure limits are set solely based on
one observed phenomenon which is the amount of power
absorbed per mass of tissue or in other words, how much
the tissue is getting heated. The thermal limits are specified
VOLUME 8, 2020 42991
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
such that any RF radiation above these limits starts to heat
the body and shows observable effects like disturbance of
blood flow and metabolism. Nonetheless, few studies have
reported that even at radiation levels below the accepted limit
(and legally defined) for human exposure there are signs of
tumor-promoting effects [14].
B. PREGNANCY AND INFERTILITY
A strong correlation between male infertility and EMR from
mobile phones has been asserted by several researchers [16].
A case study [17] was conducted on male wistar albino
rats who were exposed for 14 days, 15 minutes each day
to high EMR. The radiation had impacted their testicular
architecture and enzyme activity. It was shown that EMR
from mobile phones induces an oxidative stress in testicular
tissues and ultimately results in decrease of semen quality
and lower sperm motility. The severity of oxidative stress
depends on usage patterns of the mobile phone owner [17].
In a 2017 study to evaluate the effect of 4G-LTE EMR on
sperm formation in male rats, it was concluded that longer
durations of exposure results in decreased spermatogenesis
[18]. Incidents have been reported where telecom workers
who were accidentally exposed to high EMR doses developed
skin burns and injury to heat-sensitive tissues such as the lens
of the eyes, the testicles and the brain, leading respectively to
cataract, male infertility and seizures [19]–[21].
The carcinogenic nature of EMR which results in mutation
of sperm cells as well as testicular cancer has also been
reported [22]. Thus, the probability that future genera-
tions will inherit unhealthy or low-immunity genes is also
increased. In a case study which involved exposing pregnant
rats to EMR during different stages of pregnancy, uterine con-
gestions, dead and reabsorbed fetuses, hemorrhage, unequal
and asymmetrical distribution of fetus implantation sites,
malformation, hematoma, short tails and growth restrictions
were observed [23].
According to [24], children whose mothers used cell
phones during pregnancy had 25% more emotional problems,
35% more hyperactivity, 49% more conduct problems and
34% more peer problems.
C. AUDITORY SYSTEM DAMAGE
When a mobile device is actively connected with the cellular
network, all the components of the auditory system including
the skin, external, middle and inner ear, cochlear nerve and
the temporal lobe surface absorb RF energy. Moreover, it is
known that the outer hair cells in the cochlea are highly sen-
sitive to a wide variety of exogenous and endogenous agents
which include externally applied electric and magnetic fields
[25]. EMR is damaging to unprotected or externally exposed
biological tissue such as the outer hair cells in the cochlea.
People who have an overactive cortical stress network in the
brain are more vulnerable to tinnitus [26].
A common disease or effect is Tinnitus, which is in most
cases a neurological disorder. A person suffering from tin-
nitus perceives high-frequency ringing among other sounds
which are externally non-existent. Such people generally
report poor quality of sleep, and several difficulties through-
out their daily life. In the worst cases, even suicides have been
reported. In light of EMR, it is relevant to note that the number
of tinnitus cases reported since the last few decades has
increased several folds [27]. Studies have shown the evidence
that the main cause for such an increase can be attributed
to the widespread and long-term usage of cellular phones,
particularly in those cases where one ear is much dominantly
used over the other [28].
Another phenomenon to be aware of is RF Hearing which
was confirmed to exist as early as 1960s. Although RF energy
is electromagnetic in nature, some of it is converted into
acoustic energy both within and outside the cochlea and is
perceived as a sound centered at about 5 KHz. The exact
frequency may vary depending on the dimensions of the
subject’s head [29].
Dabholkar et al. [30] reviewed several long term case
studies and concluded that long term intensive use of mobile
phones does lead to hearing losses. Prolonged use (> 1 year)
of mobile and cellular technology may decrease the abil-
ity of a person to hear high-frequency sounds. The person
is also more likely to develop acoustic neuroma, in which
non-cancerous tissue develops on a nerve which links the
inner ear with the brain. In advanced stages of acoustic neu-
roma, pressure is exerted on the brain which may result in
dangerous neurological effects including vertigo, confusion,
unsteadiness, facial numbness and headaches. But casual or
infrequent usage does not lead to any immediately recogniz-
able adverse effects or any significant damage to the auditory
system.
D. EFFECTS ON CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Statistics show that in recent years, more children have begun
using cellphones or smartphones compared to the elder gen-
eration. In addition, it is observed that the average age at
which children nowadays begin using smartphones is also
significantly lesser than before. Therefore it is expected that
this population will absorb significantly more EMR radiation
throughout their lifetime. The existing public safety limits for
EMR exposure are not acceptably protective of public health,
especially the young population including babies, neonate,
fetus and embryo. EMR exposure to pregnant women have
detrimental consequences on the future health of the child.
The time a foteus spends in the mother’s womb is a critical
time of devleopment because the health problems that are
once laid down in the cells or in epigenetic changes in the
genome have life-long consequences on the health of that
individual [31]
The young population are more vulnerable to EMR
exposure because of their smaller body mass and rapid phys-
ical development, both of which magnify the impact of EMR
on body. The differences in bone density and the amount of
fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain allow
children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper
into their brains than adults [32]. It is known in the field of
42992 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
medicine that the brain tissue in children shows more elec-
trical conductivity when compared with adults. This allows
for more EMR penetration in proportion to the dimensions
of the head. Effects on the nervous system which is still
in developmental stages are also causes of concern. While
anatomical development of the nervous system in children is
finished, EMR could still hamper the functional development
which generally progresses into adulthood [33].
E. BLOOD RELATED DISORDERS
Exposure to even very low intensity EMR can affect
the blood-brain barrier by increasing it’s permeability.
Blood-brain barrier prevents the flow of toxins into sensi-
tive brain tissues and when it’s permeability increases due
to exposure from EMR it no longer provides the protective
barrier. Salford et al. [34] conducted a study and found that
just single two hour exposure to EMR from cell phone results
in an increased leakage of blood-brain barrier, and 50 days
of such exposure can lead to neuronal damage. The EMR
level as low as 0.001 W/kg can affect the blood-brain bar-
rier and this limit is about 1000 times lower than the FCC
(1.6 W/kg) and ICNIRP (2 W/kg) limits allowed. Research
is required to investigate the damage done by EMR exposure
on other barriers like the blood-placenta barrier (that protects
the developing fetus), the blood-testes barrier (that protects
developing sperm), the blood-ocular barrier (that protects the
eyes) and the blood-gut barrier (that protects proper digestion
and nutrition).
F. DNA DAMAGE
DNA molecules in our body directly interact with EMR. The
double helical structure of DNA causes it to act like a fractal
antenna [35]. The characteristic of a fractal antenna is that it
interacts with wide range of frequencies. Therefore, the struc-
ture of DNA makes it vulnerable to damage from EMR
exposure over the entire range of non-ionizing frequencies
i.e. from extremely low frequency range (300 Hz to 3 kHz) to
radio frequency range (3 kHz to 300 GHz). This interaction
of DNA and EMR generates free radicals, produces stress
proteins and causes gene mutations. Human DNA and stems
cells are permanently damaged by EMR exposure as they do
not have the ability to adapt to chronic exposures of EMR and
thus DNA repair is not possible [36].
G. EFFECTS ON MENTAL AND COGNITIVE HEALTH
Many neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease,
Alzheimer’s disease and motor neuron disease are found to be
caused and triggered by EMR exposure [37]. EMR damages
the neurons of the brain, reduces the neuronal reactivity,
prolongs their refractory period and increases the neural
membrane conductivity. All such diseases mentioned above
involve death of specific neurons and therefore are called
neurodegenerative diseases.
As mentioned in the introduction of this section, people
living in vicinity of cell towers and base stations are prone
to develop many neuropsychiatric problems like tremors,
numbness, headache, nausea, memory loss, dizziness, altered
reflexes, depression and many other severe brain and cog-
nition related health problems such as paralysis, stroke and
psychosis [38], [39].
VI. PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND AMBIENT
EMR MINIMIZATION
Based on the discussion in section V, it becomes very clear
that the people exposed to EMR must adopt some preven-
tive measures to limit their exposure to harmful RF EMR.
In many situations such as those discussed in Section IV,
we are exposed to EMR almost daily for prolonged periods of
time. While it may not be possible to entirely eliminate such
exposure, such as in workplaces, some protective measures
could be taken by people to reduce the amount of EMR
they absorb and thereby reduce the damage done to their
bodies. In this section we present some techniques which
are either based on externally attenuating the EMR before it
hits the body and some techniques based on monitoring and
deploying the EMR sources effectively and efficiently so as
to minimize the ambient EMR levels. The techniques based
on external attenuation have to practised on an individual
level, while the ambient EMR minimization techniques can
be practised on government and society levels only.
A. PROTECTIVE MEASURES
1) EMR ABSORBING CLOTHES
As a result of the research in the past decade suggesting
the dangers of EMR on the human body, a variety of EMR
absorbing clothing solutions began surfacing the market.
Such clothing options incorporate surface-metallized fiber
woven fabric in their apparels. Metals like copper, silver
or aluminium are chemically deposited on ordinary knitting
fabrics to obtain surface-metallized fiber knitted fabric. Such
metals are known to attenuate EMR by scattering incident
radiation [40]. While many manufacturers do claim a specific
EMR absorbing efficacy in decibels over a certain frequency
range, it cannot be said for sure whether the attenuation rating
claimed by such clothes was obtained through well-designed
tests. Such clothes are generally bi-layered, where the first
layer reflects some of the incident EMR and the second
(inner) layer absorbs the radiation which passed through the
first layer [41]. The higher the decibel value, greater is the
shielding capability. Most of the materials have a character-
istic range of frequencies which they absorb. For example,
a product that has an effect of 30 dB at 1 to 5 GHz would
mean that the product blocks 99.9% of radiation in the wave-
length range of 1 to 5 GHz, which includes most of the RF
EMR encountered commonly: cell phones, Wi-Fi routers and
bluetooth devices.
Metals are the best solution to reflect EMR. Hence, such
clothing generally has metallic strands or metal silk fibers
embedded within them which reflect incident EMR away
from the wearer’s body. Metal silk fibers are also blended
with regular fabrics to obtain specially designed electro-
magnetic shielding fabrics which are used to make different
VOLUME 8, 2020 42993
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
clothing products such as curtains and blankets. Chemical
deposition processes are also used to form a conductive metal
plating on top of regular fabric. In any of the above mentioned
varieties of EMR protective clothing, the shielding capability
increases with the amount of metal used in the product.
Pregnant women, young infants and children, are espe-
cially recommended to wear radiation protective clothing
due to their higher vulnerability to radiation absorption and
damage. Workers who are exposed to abnormally high levels
of EMR, such as cell tower repairmen need specially designed
EMR reflective and protective clothing designed specifically
for their occupation.
2) EMR ABSORBING/REFLECTING PAINTS
Many households are located very close to cell towers which
have multiple antennas operating on them. The wall facing in
the direction of the tower is most exposed to RF EMR. If it
is unprotected, i.e, it does not have any absorptive/reflective
coating, the people living in such homes are more prone to
develop EMR related health issues as discussed in Section V.
One very effective way to prevent high levels of EMR from
penetrating the home is to use EMR absorbing/reflecting
paints which are specially designed to absorb, reflect or scat-
ter EMR in the RF frequency range as is emitted by the cell
towers.It is desired to achieve high levels of attenuation across
a wide frequency range.
Materials which have numerically equal values of per-
mittivity and permeability and high loss tangents are more
suited to be used in making EMR absorbing paints. The
former characteristic guarantees good impedance mathch-
ing with the air and thus enable incident signals to enter
the surface without any reflection. The latter characteristic
enables the material to attenuate the EMR rapidly before
it enters the home. By using such materials the reflection
is also minimized. So, people standing outside the homes
are also protected from high power EMR reflected from the
walls of the homes. The power radiated from cell towers at
certain frequencies may be much higher than others. EMR
absorbing paints can address this problem as well because the
frequency range at which maximum attenuation is achieved
can be set by varying the thickness of the paint applied on
the wall. Choosing a thickness to match complex permittivity
and permeability can result in a considerable increase in the
absorption bandwidth both at normal and oblique incidence
of EMR. For example Folgueras et al. [42] have prepared
two varieties of paints to absorb EMR. Both their formu-
lation have a polyuerthane matrix. Carbonyl iron powder
(10% w/w) and polyaniline (10% w/w) are the chemicals
dispersed in the matrices of the two formulations respectively
by mechanical agitation. The attenuation plots of these paints
are shown in Fig. 12 (a) and (b) respectively. The paint of
Fig 12 (a) achieves attenuation of 8 dB (84.1%) at 10 GHz
and the paint of Fig 12 (b) achieves attenuation of 4 dB
(60.1%) at 12 GHz. Such paints could be used to shield
the EMR coming from 5G towers which are much higher
than any RF communication used till date. To ensure the
FIGURE 12. Performance of EMR absorbing paints [42].
best protection, on-site testing can be done to accurately
determine the frequency at which there is maximum radiation
and also the minimum attenuation required to ensure that
the residents are protected from any harmful effects. The
customers can pass on these specifications to the manufac-
turer who can then adjust the chemical composition and also
suggest the thickness required according to the customers’
needs. This would ensure maximum protection at minimum
expenditure.
3) AEROGEL
Aerogels are a class of high performance EM radiation
absorbing materials designed by fitting several nanosheets of
graphene into three-dimensional structures [43]. Their excel-
lent absorption characteristics is due to their high surface
area and dielectric loss [44]. The reflection loss (RL) of a
material is a characteristic of the input impedance Zin, and
output impedance Zo. RL and Zin are evaluated as follows:
RL(dB) =20log
Zin −Z0
Zin +Z0
(2)
Zin =Z0rµr
εr
tanh j2πfd
c√εrµr(3)
42994 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
TABLE 6. Comparison of different aerogels.
FIGURE 13. RL vs frequency of 3D-PPy aerogel (thickness varying from
1.5 to 5.0mm). [47].
In the above equations, Zois the impedance of the, εris
the complex permittivity, µris the relative complex permit-
tivity, fis the frequency, dis the material thickness, and c
is the speed of light. According to fundamental mechanism
of electromagnetic absorption, the most effective absorption
would take place when the impedance matching conditions
between the material and the free space is achieved [45]. Plots
of reflection loss (RL) vs frequency such as in Fig. 13 are
prepared for various thicknesses of the aerogel material. Such
plots may be used to choose the best material for an applica-
tion considering into account the most prominent frequency
of radiation and the thickness of absorbing material permis-
sible. The frequency at which highest RL occurs varies with
the thickness of the aerogel as can be seen in Fig. 13. As the
thickness of the aerogel pellet is varied, new phase matching
conditions have to be established in order to maintain the
RL [46].
Wang et al. [43] have prepared ultralight and mechanically
strong 3D composite graphene aerogels with the use of waste
cigarette filters. Their composite aerogel showed a minimum
RL of −30.53 dB with a bandwidth of 4.1 Ghz. On coating
with polypyrrole, a conducting material, the new composite
showed minimum RL of −45.12 dB. Similarly, Xie et al.
[47] prepared a self-assembled ultralight 3D polypyrrole
(3D-PPy) aerogel, a composite which can reach an effec-
tive Electro-Magnetic bandwidth of 6.2 GHz with mini-
mum RL of −25 dB. Wu et al. [48] prepared a spongelike
self-assembled ultralight aerogel which showed a minimum
RL of −54.44 dB with a bandwidth of 6.76 GHz. The above
mentioned aerogels and their absorption characteristics are
summarized in Table 6.
B. AMBIENT EMR MINIMIZATION
1) OPTIMAL MOBILE NETWORK DEPLOYMENT
With ever-growing consumer demands for telecommunication
services and the deployment of 5G technology soon to
come, many new base stations will have to be deployed
over the already existing 2G/3G and 4G network. Therefore,
it becomes very important to achieve optimal deployment
of cellular Base stations or wireless access points in order
to minimize radiation levels. Compared to most optimiza-
tion solutions in research [49]–[52], which have considered
deployment cost, coverage level and base station capacity in
the objective function, Salcedo-Sanz et al. [53] have consid-
ered an additional criterion, electromagnetic pollution. They
have proposed a solution called Grouping Coral Reefs Opti-
mization (GCRO) and demonstrated its effectiveness when
applied to a Mobile Network Deplyment Problem (MNDP).
Deruyck et al. [54] have presented a tool which achieves
different levels of optimization for power consumption and
human exposure in LTE networks. Plets et al. [55] have
developed a gentic optimization algorithm for Wireless Local
Area Networks (WLANs) which optimizes the Exposure
Index (EI) [56] taking into account all sources of exposure
such as uplink, downlink and the uplink of other users,
realistic duty cycles while simultaneously ensuring Quality
of Service (QoS) to all users.
VOLUME 8, 2020 42995
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
Chiaraviglio et al. [57] have proposed important guidelines
to be followed during deployment of 5G base stations in
order to achieve EMR-aware 5G networks. These guidelines
include modelling of 5G radio technologies which helps to
select the proper configuration of the installed equipment for
each considered site, modelling of the generated EMR levels
over the territory which allows for a fine-grained antenna
site characterization based on the knowledge of the radiation
pattern and the emitted power of each antenna in the site,
integration of current and future EMF limits, modelling of
the set of candidate sites based on idealized distributions and
operator-based constraints, modelling of 5G traffic demands
and QoS based on spatial and temporal fluctuations that can
characterize the radiated power demand and modelling of 5G
network topologies.
2) ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION MONITORING USING
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
With new base stations being installed on daily basis, moni-
toring EMR pollution on a real-time basis becomes essential
to detect and locate potentially dangerous EMR levels and
notify corresponding authorities to ensure safety of nearby
people. In this regard, Nouh et al. [58] have proposed an
EMR pollution monitoring system using a Wireless Sen-
sor Network (WSN) based framework. Their system uses a
genetic algorithm on EMR data acquired from WSN nodes
do detect and report any EMR limit violations. The WSN
nodes are deployed uniformly over an area and are equipped
with sensors to detect EMR in the frequencies which are most
prevalent.
VII. PROACTIVE PREVENTIVE TECHNIQUES
Certain simple steps can be taken by any individual to
avoid EMR exposure. Spreading awareness about dangers
and health hazards of EMR in schools, hospitals and other
areas having sensitive population such as pregnant women,
small children and old people, and giving them simple sug-
gestions based on their surroundings, can help lot of citizens
avoid EMR related health issues without spending resources
on integrating and deploying EMR attenuating technology.
We have listed few such proactive and common sense mea-
sures to minimize unnecessary and needless EMR expo-
sures keeping in mind various environments and operating
conditions:
1) In residential places such as homes, at study table and
other places where people sit for long periods to use
internet, we can have ethernet cable to avoid getting
exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi signal. Many switches to
control the power to Wi-Fi router can be installed
throughout the house to readily switch off the Wi-Fi
radiation when not in use. The windows can be covered
with transparent EMR absorbing/reflecting thin film
and outer walls can be painted with EMR absorbing
paints. Use of landlines for long talks should be pre-
ferred over mobile phones and cordless phones. Rooms
of children below the age of 12 should be particularly
safeguarded from EMR as they are more prone to EMR
related health issues.
2) In hospitals and medical institutions, it is espe-
cially important to implement guidelines regarding
EMR safety as hospitals cater to very sensitive
population such as pregnant women, newborn babies,
and unhealthy people. Hospitals should not adopt full
Wi-Fi coverage technology. Preferably they should give
ethernet ports to all the doctors and hospital wards.
Government should lay guidelines to not allow deploy-
ment of Base Station or Cell tower in near vicinity
of hospitals. Units for sensitive population like ICU,
CCU, NICU and operation theaters should avoid all
sorts of devices which use wireless communication
such as wireless incubators and remotely operated
instruments. Only those sources of EMR should be
used which are meant for medical purposes. Pregnant
women should be educated to avoid prolonged use of
mobile devices, laptops and other wireless devices.
3) In educational institutions, there is a trend to shift to
modern technology like wireless projectors in smart
classrooms, campus wide Wi-Fi access, use of digital
notebooks, etc. As we have mentioned in section V,
children are very sensitive to EMR and health issues
like autism and impaired mental development are
becoming very common among young population.
Schools where children spend almost 8 to 10 hours
need to minimize the ambient EMR levels inside
the classroom by using EMR absorbing paints and
window films. School authorities should give spe-
cial rules and guidelines for high population density
zones such as classrooms and school buses, which
get really high EMR levels due to everyone using
wireless devices simultaneously. If all classrooms can-
not be made to comply with EMR safety standards,
schools should construct special classrooms to main-
tain ‘no wireless’ condition, and allow students to opt
for it who believe their academic, social or behavioural
progress is being hindered by EMR related health
issues.
VIII. DISCUSSIONS
Currently employed public exposure limits do not provide
sufficient protection to people both in terms of long-term
and short-term exposure. The exposure limits specified by
ICNIRP take into account only the thermal effects and not
the non-thermal biological effects in determining their limits.
The ICNIRP safe exposure limits for general public for the
wireless technologies discussed in this paper are between
4,000,000 µW/m2to 10,000,000 µW/m2which is several
orders of magnitude higher than the limits prescribed by the
Building Biology, AMA and the BioInitiavtive standards.
While exposure levels within the limits prescribed by ICNIRP
only guarantee safety from the thermal effects of EMR
42996 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
TABLE 7. Recommendations for using cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices.
exposure, there are numerous scientific studies, suggesting
that even non-thermal effects pose a significant threat. These
non-thermal effects are observed at several orders of magni-
tude of radiation lower than those of thermal effects. Along
with the thermal and non-thermal effects, several other factors
such as frequency, duration of exposure, pulse shaping, power
level also contribute to health risks of EMR.
It has already been several years since the
wireless-technologies have been deployed, meaning that
the public has already been exposed to a lot of harmful
EMR without their knowledge. It may be anticipated that
this section of the population will suffer from many of the
health hazards discussed in section V. If corrections are not
made now, especially when the number of wireless devices
are growing exponentially which leads to an exponential
increase in public EMR exposure, the current and future
public will be at even greater risks of both known and
unknown health hazards. In particular, women, children and
fetus are hypersensitive to EMR and special care must be
taken to protect these groups from both short and long term
exposure.
Smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, Wi-Fi Hotspots and
Bluetooth devices such as speakers, earphones and smart-
watches are the most common sources of exposure today.
These devices are used extensively in very close proximity.
Based on the discussion in section IV, it is clear that usage of
mobile phones for calling or data streaming, using laptops and
smartphones on Wi-Fi networks, using 4G wireless hotspots
are especially dangerous. Exposure to radiation from one
or two devices, such as a smartwatch on the wrist and a
connected smartphone may result in high radiation levels only
near the hand and pocket region, a cumulative and simulta-
neous exposure to several sources of EMR, such as laptop,
smartphone, Wi-Fi router, Bluetooth earphones, smartwatch
and speaker leads to dangerous levels of EMR all throughout
the body and must be avoided. While it may take very long for
the exposure levels of these devices to be corrected, the users
can take some steps to minimize the risk of using these
devices. A summary of the recommendations regarding usage
of these devices is given in Table 7.
There are wired solutions in each of these use cases
which can be adopted to greatly minimize EMR exposure.
Using handsfree earphones to make phone-calls, using LAN
cables instead of Wi-Fi, wired earphones, switching off Wi-Fi
routers when not in use, maintaining a good distance from
the wireless devices, are some of the measures to minimize
exposure. A two-fold approach can be followed to mini-
mize harm from EMR pollution. Firstly, measures can be
taken to protect people from the already existing high lev-
els of EMR. Second, proactive prevention techniques can
be adopted in environments such as households, schools
and hospitals to greatly minimize EMR exposure. These
have been explained in detail in Section VI and VII of this
paper.
Both individuals and governments must be aware of the
fact that the current population has already been exposed to
dangerous levels of radiation and the resulting adverse health
effects may surface in people at any time. In this regard,
proper planning and execution, both on governmental and
individual levels is required to properly handle a breakout
of EMR related health issues in large numbers of people in
all areas of the world. Specifically, it must be noted that the
radiation in 5G networks is suspected to increase by several
folds. It will not only affect regions near cell towers and
5G devices but all indoor and outdoor environments in the
region of coverage. Thus, almost all people in the area of
coverage of 5G networks may be exposed to dangerous levels
of EMR. Without thorough research and well-designed safety
measures in place, wide-spread deployment of 5G networks
could prove to be dangerous.
VOLUME 8, 2020 42997
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
IX. CONCLUSION
People should be made aware that the EMR from using day
to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to
human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases
such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smart-
phones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smart-
watches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with
radiations limits determined by medical bodies. According to
the current medical literature, various adverse health effects
from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented.
For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as
possible. New and innovative wired solutions which provide
the same level of user-friendliness should be encouraged.
Intervention of government and medical bodies with the main
purpose of protecting human health is of utmost necessity to
ensure good economic development without compromising
the health of the population. Countries must adopt the guide-
lines suggested by medical bodies which take into account
both thermal and non-thermal effects of EMR. At present, all
individuals must take preventive and protective measures to
protect themselves from harmful EMR exposure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was made possible by NPRP10-1205-160012
grant from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member
of The Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are
solely the responsibility of the authors.
REFERENCES
[1] WLAN Connected Devices Worldwide 2016–2021 | Statista.
Accessed: Aug. 17, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/802706/world-wlan-connected-device/
[2] BankMyCell. (Aug. 2019). How Many People Have Phones World-
wide? [Online]. Available: https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-
phones-are-in-the-world
[3] J. C. Lin, ‘‘Human exposure to RF, microwave, and millimeter-wave
electromagnetic radiation [Health Effects],’’ IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 17,
no. 6, pp. 32–36, Jun. 2016.
[4] P. Vecchia, ‘‘Exposure of humans to electromagnetic fields. Standards
and regulations,’’ Annali dell’Istituto Superiore Sanita, vol. 43, no. 3,
pp. 260–267, 2007.
[5] G. Kumar, ‘‘Cell tower radiation,’’ IIT Bombay, Mumbai,
India, Tech. Rep., Dec. 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.
ee.iitb.ac.in/~mwave/GK-cell-tower-rad-report-DOT-Dec2010.pdf
[6] K. R. Foster, ‘‘Exposure limits for radiofrequency energy: Three
models,’’ in Proc. Conf. Criteria EMF Standards Harmonization.
Varna, Bulgaria: World Health Organization, 2001. [Online]. Available:
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/en/day2Varna_Foster.pdf
[7] J. Behari et al. (2012). Biolnitiative 2012 A Rationale for Biologically-
Based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic
Radiation Biolnitiative Working Group 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://bioinitiative.info/bioInitiativeReport2012.pdf
[8] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection—
Wikipedia. Accessed: Jan. 6, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Non-Ionizing_
Radiation_Protection
[9] The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,
‘‘Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and
electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),’’ Health Phys., vol. 74, no. 4,
pp. 494–522, Apr. 1998.
[10] B. Maes, ‘‘Standard of building biology testing methods,’’ Inst. Building
Biol. + Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep. SBM-2008,
2008.
[11] Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the Diagnosis
and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses
(EMF Syndrome), Standard, 2012, pp. 1–17. [Online]. Available:
https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Austrian-
EMF-Guidelines-2012.pdf
[12] The Top Countries With 5G Deployments and Trials—SDxCentral.
Accessed: Jan. 6, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sdxcentral.
com/5g/definitions/the-top-countries-with-5g-deployments-and-trials/
[13] (2011). IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possi-
bly Carcinogenic to Humans. [Online]. Available: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
[14] L. Hardell and M. Carlberg, ‘‘Comments on the US National Toxicology
Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats
exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice
exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz,’’ Int. J.
Oncol., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 111–127, 2019.
[15] National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. High Expo-
sure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male
Rats. Accessed: Sep. 10, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.niehs.
nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
[16] I. Fejes, Z. Závaczki, J. Szöllősi, S. Koloszár, J. Daru, L. Kovács, and
A. Pál, ‘‘Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality?’’
Arch. Androl., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 385–393, 2005.
[17] M. Al-Damegh, ‘‘Rat testicular impairment induced by electromagnetic
radiation from a conventional cellular telephone and the protective effects
of the antioxidants vitamins c and e,’’ Clinics, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 785–792,
Jul. 2012.
[18] J. J. Oh, S.-S. Byun, S. E. Lee, G. Choe, and S. K. Hong, ‘‘Effect of elec-
tromagnetic waves from mobile phones on spermatogenesis in the era of
4G-LTE,’’ BioMed Res. Int., vol. 2018, pp. 1–8, 2018.
[19] Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electric Fields,Variable Magnetic and
Electromagnetic Fields in Time (Up to 300 GHz). Accessed: Jul. 20, 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.anatel.gov.br/
[20] A. Ahlbom, A. Green, L. Kheifets, D. Savitz, and A. Swerdlow, ‘‘Epi-
demiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure,’’ Environ. Med.,
vol. 112, no. 17, pp. 1741–1754, 2004.
[21] A. P. S. Balbani and J. C. Montovani, ‘‘Mobile phones: Influence on audi-
tory and vestibular systems,’’ BrazilianJ. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 74, no. 1,
pp. 125–131, Jan. 2008.
[22] L. Yousif, M. Blettner, G. P. Hammer, and H. Zeeb, ‘‘Testicular cancer risk
associated with occupational radiation exposure: A systematic literature
review,’’ J. Radiol. Protection, vol. 30, no. 3, p. 389, 2010.
[23] A. S. H. Alchalabi, E. Aklilu, A. R. Aziz, F. Malek, S. Ronald, and
M. A. Khan, ‘‘Different periods of intrauterine exposure to electromag-
netic field: Influence on female rats’ fertility, prenatal and postnatal devel-
opment,’’ Asian Pacific J. Reproduction, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–23, 2016.
[24] H. A. Divan, L. Kheifets, C. Obel, and J. Olsen, ‘‘Prenatal and postnatal
exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children,’’ Epidemi-
ology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 523–529, Jul. 2008.
[25] S. Watanabe, M. Taki, T. Tanaka, and Y. Watanabe, ‘‘FDTD analysis of
microwave hearing effect,’’ IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 48,
no. 11, pp. 2126–2132, 2000.
[26] M. Landgrebe, U. Frick, S. Hauser, G. Hajak, and B. Langguth, ‘‘Associ-
ation of tinnitus and electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Hints for a shared
pathophysiology?’’ PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 3, p. e5026, Mar. 2009.
[27] H.-P. Hutter, H. Moshammer, P. Wallner, M. Cartellieri,
D.-M. Denk-Linnert, M. Katzinger, K. Ehrenberger, and M. Kundi,
‘‘Tinnitus and mobile phone use,’’ Occupational Environ. Med., vol. 67,
no. 12, pp. 804–808, Jun. 2010.
[28] L. N. Medeiros and T. G. Sanchez, ‘‘Tinnitus and cell phones: The role
of electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation,’’ Brazilian J. Otorhinolaryn-
gol., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 97–104, Jan. 2016.
[29] J. A. Elder and C. K. Chou, ‘‘Auditory response to pulsed radiofrequency
energy,’’ Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 24, no. S6, pp. S162–S173, Nov. 2003.
[30] Y. G. Dabholkar, A. G. Pusalkar, and H. K. Velankar, ‘‘Effects of cell
phone EMF radiations on the auditory system—A review,’’ Int. J. Health
Sci. Res., vol. 6, pp. 506–515, Jan. 2016.
[31] C. Sage and E. Burgio, ‘‘Electromagnetic fields, pulsed radiofrequency
radiation, and epigenetics: How wireless technologies may affect child-
hood development,’’ Child Develop., vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 129–136,
May 2017.
42998 VOLUME 8, 2020
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
[32] R. D. Morris, L. L. Morgan, and D. Davis, ‘‘Children absorb higher doses
of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones than
adults,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 2379–2387, 2015.
[33] A. A. Warille, M. E. Onger, A. P. Turkmen, O. G. Deniz, G. Altun,
K. K. Yurt, B. Z. Altunkaynak, and S. Kaplan, ‘‘Controversies on electro-
magnetic field exposure and the nervous systems of children,’’ Histol.
Histopathol., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 461–468, May 2016.
[34] L. G. Salford, A. Brun, K. Sturesson, J. L. Eberhardt, and
B. R. R. Persson, ‘‘Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced
by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at
8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz,’’ Microsc. Res. Techn., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 535–542,
Apr. 1994.
[35] M. Blank and R. Goodman, ‘‘DNA is a fractal antenna in electro-
magnetic fields,’’ Int. J. Radiat. Biol., vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 409–415,
Feb. 2011.
[36] P. H. Lai, ‘‘Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields,’’ Dept.
Bioeng., BioInitiative Working Group, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA,
USA, Tech. Rep., Mar. 2014.
[37] N. K. Sharma, R. Sharma, D. Mathur, S. Sharad, G. Minhas, K. Bhatia,
A. Anand, and S. P. Ghosh, ‘‘Role of ionizing radiation in neu-
rodegenerative diseases,’’ Frontiers Aging Neurosci., vol. 10, p. 134,
May 2018.
[38] G. Abdel-Rassoul, O. A. El-Fateh, M. A. Salem, A. Michael, F. Farahat,
M. El-Batanouny, and E. Salem, ‘‘Neurobehavioral effects among inhabi-
tants around mobile phone base stations,’’ NeuroToxicology, vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 434–440, Mar. 2007.
[39] S.-E. Chia, H.-P. Chia, and J.-S. Tan, ‘‘Prevalence of headache among
handheld cellular telephone users in Singapore: A community
study,’’ Environ. health Perspect., vol. 108, no. 11, pp. 1059–1062,
2000.
[40] X. Zhu, X. Li, and B. Sun, ‘‘Study on electromagnetic shielding efficacy of
knitting clothing,’’ Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 42–43,
2012.
[41] Y.-S. Yang and X.-L. He, ‘‘Radiation resistant clothing,’’ U.S. Patent
8 624212, Jan. 7, 2014.
[42] L. D. C. Folgueras, M. A. Alves, and M. C. Rezende, ‘‘Electromagnetic
radiation absorbing paints based on carbonyl iron and polyaniline,’’ in
Proc. SBMO/IEEE MTT-S Int. Microw. Optoelectron. Conf. (IMOC),
Nov. 2009, pp. 510–513.
[43] C. Wang, Y. Ding, Y. Yuan, X. He, S. Wu, S. Hu, M. Zou, W. Zhao,
L. Yang, A. Cao, and Y. Li, ‘‘Graphene aerogel composites derived from
recycled cigarette filters for electromagnetic wave absorption,’’ J. Mater.
Chem. C, vol. 3, no. 45, pp. 11893–11901, 2015.
[44] X. Bai, Y. Zhai, and Y. Zhang, ‘‘Green approach to prepare graphene-based
composites with high microwave absorption capacity,’’ J. Phys. Chem. C,
vol. 115, no. 23, pp. 11673–11677, May 2011.
[45] M. Cao, R. Qin, C. Qiu, and J. Zhu, ‘‘Matching design and mismatching
analysis towards radar absorbing coatings based on conducting plate,’’
Mater. Des., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 391–396, Aug. 2003.
[46] W.-L. Song, M.-S. Cao, L.-Z. Fan, M.-M. Lu, Y. Li, C.-Y. Wang, and
H.-F. Ju, ‘‘Highly ordered porous carbon/wax composites for effective
electromagnetic attenuation and shielding,’’ Carbon, vol. 77, pp. 130–142,
Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2014.05.014.
[47] A. Xie, F. Wu, M. Sun, X. Dai, Z. Xu, Y. Qiu, Y. Wang, and M. Wang,
‘‘Self-assembled ultralight three-dimensional polypyrrole aerogel for
effective electromagnetic absorption,’’ Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 106, no. 22,
Jun. 2015, Art. no. 222902, doi: 10.1063/1.4921180.
[48] F. Wu, A. Xie, M. Sun, Y. Wang, and M. Wang, ‘‘Reduced graphene
oxide (RGO) modified spongelike polypyrrole (PPy) aerogel for excel-
lent electromagnetic absorption,’’ J. Mater. Chem. A, vol. 3, no. 27,
pp. 14358–14369, 2015.
[49] P. Garcia-Diaz, S. Salcedo-Sanz, J. Plaza-Laina, A. Portilla-Figueras, and
J. Del Ser, ‘‘A discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm for mobile
network deployment problems,’’ in Proc. IEEE 17th Int. Workshop Com-
put. Aided Model. Design Commun. Links Netw. (CAMAD), Sep. 2012,
pp. 61–65.
[50] A. Howard, M. J. Matarić, and G. S. Sukhatme, ‘‘Mobile sensor
network deployment using potential fields: A distributed, scalable
solution to the area coverage problem,’’ in Distributed Autonomous
Robotic Systems 5. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, 2002, pp. 299–308.
[Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-4-431-
65941-9_30
[51] A. Howard, M. J. Matarić, and G. S. Sukhatme, ‘‘An incremental
self-deployment algorithm for mobile sensor networks,’’ Auton.
Robots, vol. 13, pp. 113–126, 2002. [Online]. Available:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019625207705,
doi: 10.1023/A:1019625207705.
[52] N. Heo and P. K. Varshney, ‘‘Energy-efficient deployment of intelligent
mobile sensor networks,’’ IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst.
Humans, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 78–92, Jan. 2005.
[53] S. Salcedo-Sanz, P. García-Díaz, J. Del Ser, M. N. Bilbao, and
J. A. Portilla-Figueras, ‘‘A novel grouping coral reefs optimization
algorithm for optimal mobile network deployment problems under
electromagnetic pollution and capacity control criteria,’’ Expert Syst.
Appl., vol. 55, pp. 388–402, Aug. 2016.
[54] M. Deruyck, E. Tanghe, D. Plets, L. Martens, and W. Joseph, ‘‘Optimizing
LTE wireless access networks towards power consumption and electro-
magnetic exposure of human beings,’’ Comput. Netw., vol. 94, pp. 29–40,
Jan. 2016.
[55] D. Plets, G. Vermeeren, E. D. Poorter, I. Moerman, S. K. Goudos, M. Luc,
and J. Wout, ‘‘Experimental optimization of exposure index and quality of
service in Wlan networks,’’ Radiat. Protection Dosimetry, pp. 394–405,
Jan. 2017.
[56] N. Varsier, D. Plets, Y. Corre, G. Vermeeren, W. Joseph, S. Aerts,
L. Martens, and J. Wiart, ‘‘A novel method to assess human population
exposure induced by a wireless cellular network,’’ Bioelectromagnetics,
vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 451–463, Jun. 2015.
[57] L. Chiaraviglio, A. S. Cacciapuoti, G. D. Martino, M. Fiore,
M. Montesano, D. Trucchi, and N. B. Melazzi, ‘‘Planning 5G networks
under EMF constraints: State of the art and vision,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6,
pp. 51021–51037, 2018.
[58] S. Nouh, N. Elgaml, N. Ali, A. Khattab, R. Daoud, and H. Amer, ‘‘Gener-
alized electromagnetic pollution monitoring using WSN,’’ Wireless Sensor
Netw., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 85–92, 2016.
NAREN is currently pursuing the B.E. degree
in electrical and electronics engineering and the
M.Sc. degree (Hons.) in physics with the Birla
Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. He has
completed projects on quark-gluon plasma, super-
conductivity, hardware security techniques in IoT,
and electromagnetic radiation pollution. His other
research interests include the IoT, industry 4.0,
and security provisioning in V2G, UAV, and the
medical IoT networks.
ANUBHAV ELHENCE is currently pursuing the
B.E. degree in electronics and instrumentation
engineering and the M.Sc. degree (Hons.) in
physics with the Birla Institute of Technology and
Science, Pilani. He was a part of the Japan-Asia
Youth Exchange Program in science and was
awarded an International Linkage Degree from
Hiroshima University, Japan. His research inter-
ests include advanced brain signal processing,
Internet of Things, and security in vehicular net-
works. He was a recipient of KVPY scholarship granted by the Department
of Science and Technology, Government of India, and Sakura Science
Scholarship granted by the Japanese Science and Technology Agency.
VOLUME 8, 2020 42999
Naren et al.: EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?
VINAY CHAMOLA received the B.E. degree
in electrical and electronics engineering and the
master’s degree in communication engineering
from the Birla Institute of Technology and Sci-
ence, Pilani, India, in 2010 and 2013, respectively,
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer
engineering from the National University of Sin-
gapore, Singapore, in 2016. In 2015, he was a
Visiting Researcher with the Autonomous Net-
works Research Group, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. He is currently an Assistant Pro-
fessor with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
BITS-Pilani, Pilani Campus. His research interests include green commu-
nications and networking, 5G network management, the Internet of Things,
and blockchain.
MOHSEN GUIZANI (Fellow, IEEE) received
the B.S. (Hons.) and M.S. degrees in electrical
engineering and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
computer engineering from Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY, USA, in 1984, 1986, 1987, and
1990, respectively. He served in different academic
and administrative positions at the University of
Idaho, Western Michigan University, University
of West Florida, University of Missouri-Kansas
City, University of Colorado-Boulder, and Syra-
cuse University. He is currently a Professor with the Computer Science and
Engineering Department, Qatar University, Qatar. He is the author of nine
books and more than 600 publications in refereed journals and conferences.
His research interests include wireless communications and mobile com-
puting, computer networks, mobile cloud computing, security, and smart
grid. He is a Senior Member of ACM. He served as a member, Chair,
and General Chair of a number of international conferences. Throughout
his career, he received three teaching awards and four research awards.
He also received the 2017 IEEE Communications Society WTC Recognition
Award and the 2018 Ad-Hoc Technical Committee Recognition Award for
his contribution to outstanding research in wireless communications and
ad-hoc sensor networks. He was the Chair of the IEEE Communications
Society Wireless Technical Committee and the Chair of the TAOS Technical
Committee. He served as the IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Speaker
and is currently the IEEE ComSoc Distinguished Lecturer. He is currently
the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Network Magazine, serves on the editorial
boards of several international technical journals, and the Founder and the
Editor-in-Chief of Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing journal
(Wiley). He guest edited a number of special issues in IEEE journals and
magazines.
43000 VOLUME 8, 2020
