• The U.S. government has halted critical research into the biological effects of cellphone radiation, raising questions about transparency, public health and potential industry influence. This decision comes despite a $30 million National Toxicology Program (NTP) study in 2018 that found “clear evidence” of malignant heart tumors in male rats and “some evidence” of brain and adrenal gland tumors linked to radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
• In January 2024, the NTP announced it would no longer pursue RFR research, citing “technical challenges” and resource constraints. This decision has sparked confusion and concern among scientists and advocates, especially given the growing use of wireless technology and 5G networks.
• A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Children’s Health Defense revealed 14 pages of emails with no explanation for halting the research, alongside 2,500 fully redacted pages.
• While the U.S. has stopped RFR research, other nations, including the European Union and France, are actively studying and regulating wireless radiation. France, for example, has recalled phones for excessive radiation and issued warnings to vulnerable groups, highlighting a stark contrast to the U.S. government’s inaction.

In a world increasingly dominated by wireless technology, the question of whether cellphones pose a health risk has become a pressing concern. Yet, despite mounting evidence of potential harm, the U.S. government has quietly halted critical research into the biological effects of cellphone radiation. The decision, shrouded in secrecy and redacted documents, raises alarming questions about transparency, public health and the influence of powerful industries.

The $30 million study that found “clear evidence” of harm

In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency program under the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published the results of a decade-long, $30 million study on the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The findings were startling: “clear evidence” of malignant heart tumors in male rats, “some evidence” of brain and adrenal gland tumors, and significant DNA damage. These results echoed earlier studies linking cellphone radiation to cancer and other health risks.

The NTP study was groundbreaking, not only because of its scale but also because it was one of the few government-funded efforts to examine the long-term effects of RFR. Yet, in January 2024, the NTP announced it would no longer pursue further research into wireless radiation, citing “technical challenges” and resource constraints. This abrupt decision has left scientists, advocates and the public wondering: Why stop now, when the stakes are higher than ever?

A trail of redactions and unanswered questions

In April 2024, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit advocacy group, filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover the reasoning behind the NTP’s decision. What they received was a mere 14 pages of emails—none of which explained why the research was halted. Even more concerning, 2,500 pages of documents were fully redacted, leaving a trail of unanswered questions.

“It’s concerning that there were apparently no written communications involving [key officials] in the months leading up to NTP’s announcement that it was abandoning the research,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program. “What role did they play in the decision?”

The FOIA request sought communications between key NTP officials, including Rick Woychik, Ph.D., director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and Robert C. Sills, DVM, Ph.D., acting scientific director of the Division of Translational Toxicology (DTT). Yet, the disclosed emails revealed little beyond internal deliberations over how to respond to media inquiries.

One email, from Michael Wyde, Ph.D., a toxicologist involved in the follow-up studies, included a striking omission. A sentence stating, “Efforts will be refocused in other areas where contributions can be made to understanding the potential effects of RF exposure on public health,” was struck through. Why was this sentence removed? Did the NTP have plans to continue studying RFR in a different capacity? The redactions and omissions only deepen the mystery.

A global concern, a silent government

While the U.S. government has stepped back from studying wireless radiation, other nations are taking the issue seriously. The European Union has funded multi-million-dollar studies on the health effects of RFR, and France has implemented strict regulations, including recalling millions of phones for excessive radiation and warning teenagers and pregnant women to limit exposure.

In contrast, the NTP’s decision to abandon further research seems out of step with global efforts to understand and mitigate the risks of wireless technology. As Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist, noted, “This sudden end of civilian government efforts to study potential health impacts of wireless radiation constitutes a glaring abdication of responsibility.”

The implications of this decision are profound. Cellphones are used by 97% of American adults, and children are particularly vulnerable due to their developing brains and thinner skulls. With 5G networks expanding and wireless devices becoming ubiquitous, the need for rigorous, independent research has never been greater.

A call for transparency and accountability

The NTP’s decision to halt RFR research raises critical questions about transparency and accountability. Why were 2,500 pages of documents redacted? Who made the decision to stop the studies, and what influenced that decision? Were there pressures from industry or other government agencies?

Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., who directed the NTP from 2009 to 2019, suggested that the decision-makers may have intentionally avoided leaving a paper trail. “It’s possible that whoever chose to halt the studies decided they weren’t going to have anything in writing,” she said.

This lack of transparency is deeply troubling. As Paul Héroux, Ph.D., an associate professor of medicine at McGill University, pointed out, “If NTP’s leadership wanted to make their statement credible, they should or could have publicly explained those difficulties.” Instead, the public is left with more questions than answers.

The bigger picture: A global experiment

The cessation of RFR research by the NTP is not just a scientific or bureaucratic issue—it’s a public health crisis. As Davis aptly put it, “Whether the government stops doing the research or not, we are all a part of a massive research study.”

Billions of people worldwide are exposed to wireless radiation daily, with no control group to compare outcomes. The potential health effects—ranging from cancer and DNA damage to infertility and neurological disorders—are too significant to ignore. Yet, without robust, independent research, we are left in the dark about the true risks.

The NTP’s decision to abandon RFR studies is a disservice to public health and a betrayal of scientific integrity. As advocates for health freedom, we must demand transparency, accountability and a renewed commitment to understanding the impacts of wireless technology. The stakes are too high to remain silent.

What you can do:

• Stay informed about the latest research on wireless radiation and its health effects.
• Advocate for transparency and accountability in government-funded research.
• Support organizations like Children’s Health Defense that are fighting for public health and scientific integrity.
• Limit your exposure to wireless devices, especially for children and pregnant women.

The signals may be silent, but the need for action is loud and clear.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

 Niehs.nih.gov

TheHill.com