By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye
Few inventions have transformed modern life as completely as the mobile phone. It is our pocket-sized gateway to the world—connecting families, powering businesses, and even saving lives. Yet with billions of people relying on them daily, a question lingers at the heart of public concern: could the very devices we hold against our heads and place in our children’s hands pose hidden dangers to our health and wellbeing?
From fears of cancer and radiation to worries over addiction, sleep loss, and social isolation, the debate around cell phone safety has become as global as their use. Science, however, offers a more nuanced picture—one that balances reassurance with caution, and certainty with the need for ongoing research.
Cell phones, radiation, and the science of safety
The USA’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with its 30 June 2025 story headlined “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?”, points out “Some people are concerned that radio frequency energy from cell phones will cause cancer or other serious health hazards. Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC [Federal Communications Commission].”
“Key points: cell phones emit low levels of radio frequency energy, a type of non-ionizing radiation. The available scientific data on exposure to radio frequency energy show no categorical proof of any adverse biological effects other than tissue heating. Public health data show no association between exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use and health problems.”
Radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure limits are regulatory thresholds set by the FCC in the U.S.A, to protect public health from excessive RF energy emitted by wireless devices like cell phones. These limits are based on a measure called the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) — the rate at which the body absorbs RF energy. Services sold in the U.S. must demonstrate compliance with these limits before they are approved for the market. The FCC explains “For wireless devices intended for use near or against the body (such as cell phones, tablets and other portable devices) operating at or below 6 GHz, these guidelines specify exposure limits in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue.”
So, when the FDA says that the evidence hasn’t shown harm “at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC,” it means that cell phones are considered safe as long as they operate within those FCC-approved safety thresholds. Current scientific evidence does not link their RF emissions to cancer or other health hazards.
“Operating at or below 6 GHz” refers to the frequency range of the radio signals that a device (like a cell phone, Wi-Fi router, or other wireless tech) uses. A GHz (gigahertz) equals a billion of cycles per second.
A gigahertz (GHz) constitutes a unit that measures how fast something is cycling or ticking every second. Think of a cycle as a tiny tick, like the tick of a clock— the sound that clocks and watches produce every second. One hertz (1 Hz) is just one tick per second. Scale that up, and you get kilohertz (1,000 ticks per second), megahertz (1 million ticks per second), and gigahertz—1 billion ticks per second.
For example, when a processor in your phone or computer runs at 3 GHz, it’s completing 3 billion tiny calculation cycles every second. To imagine this, picture a regular wall clock: its second hand ticks once per second—that’s 1 Hz. Now imagine if that hand could tick a billion times in the same second. That’s the incredible speed of 1 GHz. In short, GHz tells us how many times a processor, signal, or wave completes its tiny “tick” in a single second, giving a sense of how fast modern devices really operate.
Various common wireless technologies use frequencies below 6 GHz, with different wireless technologies operating at different frequency ranges which determine how fast their signals oscillate. For example, 4G LTE networks typically operate between 600 MHz and 3.7 GHz, allowing smartphones to communicate efficiently over long distances. Standard Wi-Fi uses the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands which are ideal for home and office networks, balancing speed and coverage. Meanwhile, 5G networks often use the sub-6 GHz bands (also called “sub-6”), enabling faster data transmission and lower latency compared to previous generations.
However, some 5G networks also use millimeter-wave bands above 24 GHz for ultra-fast speeds in limited areas. These networks aren’t below 6 GHz.
Wireless networks that operate below 6 GHz—such as 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and sub-6 GHz 5G—are considered non-harmful under current safety standards. Regulators like the FCC establish strict limits on how much RF energy the body can absorb, and decades of studies have not indicated evidence of harm at or below these limits. The limits are set well below levels that could cause damage.
The FCC also affirms “Several US government agencies and international organizations work cooperatively to monitor research on the health effects of RF exposure. According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones.”
Citing the US National Cancer Institute, the FDA says “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. Scientific studies: the FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of nearly 30 years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as cancer.
Public health data: the FDA also monitors and analyzes public health data on cancer rates in the U.S. population. The data clearly demonstrate no widespread rise in brain and other nervous system cancers in the last 30 years despite the enormous increase in cell phone use during this period. In fact, the rate of brain and other nervous system cancers diagnosed in United States has decreased for the last 15 years or so.”
When scientists talk about “tissue heating” in relation to RF energy, they mean the slight warming of body tissues, like skin or underlying cells, that occurs when those tissues absorb RF signals, much like food warms in a microwave oven. However, at the levels produced by everyday devices such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth, this heating is extremely minimal. The body’s natural cooling systems, especially blood circulation, quickly dissipate the heat, preventing it from reaching harmful levels.
Regulatory agencies like the FCC and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) set strict exposure limits specifically to ensure that RF energy does not beget significant tissue heating. Therefore, while tissue heating is a known biological effect of RF exposure, under current safety standards it does not constitute a health issue.
Meanwhile, PMC (PubMed Central) — in its October 2014 piece of writing titled “Health risks associated with mobile phones use”— reported “In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phone radiation possibly carcinogenic [causing cancer or relating to things which engender cancer], means that there ‘could be some risk’ of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted.”
PMC is the free digital repository of biomedical literature managed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine [NLM]. NLM is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It added “Children have the potential to be at greater risk than adults for developing brain cancer from cell phones. Their nervous systems are still developing and therefore more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. While an increased risk of brain tumours from the use of mobile phones is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk.”
“The American Cancer Society (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children. Scientists have reported adverse health effects of using mobile phones including changes in brain activity, reaction times, and sleep patterns. More studies are underway to try to confirm these findings.”
While Life In Humanity is not entirely certain, it is probable that the call— for additional studies— by PMC and the IARC has helped to drive much of the research that informs today’s understanding of cell phone safety. This research, assessed by the FDA and FCC, currently indicates that cell phones operating within regulatory exposure limits are not linked with cancer or other health problems, apart from minimal tissue heating. Still, the fact that respected scientific bodies once urged further investigation reminds us that caution and ongoing research remain essential.
The National Institutes of Health in its 4 April 2024 article “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk” also points out “Brain and central nervous system cancers have been of particular concern because hand-held phones are used close to the head and because ionizing radiation—a higher energy form of radiation than what cell phones emit—has been found to cause some brain cancers. Many different kinds of studies have been carried out to try to investigate whether cell phone use is dangerous to human health. However, the evidence to date suggests that cell phone use does not cause brain or other kinds of cancer in humans.”
“There are two main reasons why people are concerned that cell (or mobile) phones might have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems: cell phones emit radiation (in the form of radiofrequency radiation, or radio waves), and cell phone use is widespread. Even a small increase in cancer risk from cell phones would be of concern given how many people use them.”
When does the issue of telephones arise?
“In the digital age, mobile phones have become an essential part of children’s and adolescents’ lives. However, excessive use has led to negative effects on physical, psychological, and social health, including reduced physical activity, eye strain, sleep problems, and social isolation. The causes of this phenomenon include easy access to devices, lack of parental supervision, and parental neglect.
There is an urgent need to raise awareness among families, schools, and the community about the importance of regulating mobile phone use and establishing clear guidelines to ensure safe and balanced usage,” reads a case study entitled “Excessive Mobile Phone Use Among Children and Adolescents (Ages 2 to 18)” published by Research Gate on 25 March 2025.
This study recommends parents to regulate the use of the device and provide an interactive environment for children. It also advises educational institutions—schools and teachers— to enhance awareness of the risks of excessive use of use of mobile phones and furnish alternative stimulating activities. It suggests that the health sector—doctors especially pediatricians and psychologists— should offer therapeutic and awareness guidelines on the health and psychological harms.
Britannica, through its article last updated on 7 August 2025 and entitled “Cell Phones in Schools”, highlights “Globally, in 2024 there were 4.88 billion smartphone users (about 60 percent of the global population) and some 7 billion smartphones in use. China led with almost 975 million smartphone users, followed by India (659 million users) and the United States (276 million users). Projections estimate that smartphone users will increase by more than 30 percent by 2029.
The percentage of American children using cell phones is rising as dramatically as the age of introduction to digital media is plummeting. According to recent studies, 40 percent of children have their own tablet by age two; 58 percent have their own tablet by age four; 25 percent have a cell phone by age eight; 42 percent have a smartphone by age ten; and 91 percent have a smartphone by age 14. This early use of smartphones is mirrored worldwide. By age 12, 97 percent of kids in the United Kingdom and 75 percent of kids in Spain have smartphones.”
Over the past decade, schools in the United States and around the world have grappled with the challenge of managing student cell phone use. Britannica explains “A federal survey found that 91 percent of American schools banned nonacademic cell phone use during the 2009–10 school year. However, as educational apps became widely available, schools relaxed their restrictions on technology, and by the 2015–16 school year, only 66 percent of schools restricted phone use.
But this relaxation of restrictions was temporary, and by the 2019–20 school year, school cell phone bans had risen, with 76.9 percent of schools implementing a policy. The most recent data, from the 2020–21 school year, shows only a slight dip, to 76.1 percent. Banning cell phone use in schools is a worldwide phenomenon. According to a 2023 UNESCO report, almost 25 percent of countries worldwide ban cell phones in schools, and bans are more common in Central and South Asian countries.”
Among pros of phone bans among students, Britannica highlights that cell phone bans (1) protect students from physical, mental, and digital dangers, (2) minimize distractions for students and teachers, and (3) advance educational goals. Britannica clarifies “Cell phones in schools can escalate tiny issues into big deals. Cyberbullying is now immediate and widespread. It can take mere seconds via social media to reach not only most students within a school but also the outside world. Increasingly, cell phones are used to escalate conflicts to the point of violence.”
To provide a typical example, Britannica quotes Shari Obrenski, president of the Cleveland Teachers Union who has explained that high school students employ cell phones to schedule, record, and post fights to social media: “They were using the phones to create chaos and perpetuate violence in our schools.”
According to Britannica, The New York Times reviewed more than 400 school fight videos and “found a pattern of middle and high school students exploiting phones and social media to arrange, provoke, capture and spread footage of brutal beatings among their peers.”
“Some students later died from their injuries,” adds Britannica before further stating that the journalist Natasha Singer reported “Young people’s fast-changing tech habits have made it harder to prevent and contain student aggression, school officials said. Many students now use more private channels—like Snapchat, iMessage and AirDrop, Apple’s wireless file-sharing system—to set up and share fights rather than Instagram or TikTok.”
Britannica says that cell phone bans also provide individual students with protection from physical and mental discomfort. It cites a study which states“When iPhone users were unable to answer their ringing iPhone during a word search puzzle, heart rate and blood pressure increased, [and] self-reported feelings of anxiety and unpleasantness increased.”
Britannica underscores “There is no need for kids and teens to experience such pressure and anxiety. Removing the phones altogether gives students breathing room (literally and figuratively) away from devices.”
Britannica discloses that one study found “students who were not using their mobile phones wrote down 62% more information in their notes, took more detailed notes, were able to recall more detailed information from the lecture, and scored a full letter grade and a half higher on a multiple choice test than those students who were actively using their mobile phones. Studies abound with supporting evidence that students across ages and nationalities who are not in possession of their cell phones (or connected devices such as smartwatches) perform better on educational tasks such as quizzes.”
Marty Makary, a physician and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine—according to Britannica, stated “America’s children are hurting. Behind in school after pandemic closures, many children are now struggling with another major barrier to learning—smartphone addiction. Two-thirds of Americans [sic] students say they are distracted by their digital devices during class.
There’s also a second-hand smoke effect: more than half of students are distracted by the devices of other students, according to a 2022 Program for International Student Assessment study. It’s a complex problem. But one solution is embarrassingly simple—ban phones in America’s classrooms. As a society, we don’t allow alcohol or drugs in schools. Why should we allow highly-addictive phones to be used in the same setting?”
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, also cited by Britannica, emphasized “It’s clear that the presence of cellphones on campus is more harmful than helpful. Kids need an intervention, and schools are right to rein in [prevent from becoming too powerful]this technology now before another generation suffers.
Yes, it will be difficult to change the behavior of both students, who are loath to part with their phones, and their parents, who are accustomed to being able to reach their kids at any time of the day. Yes, some students will try to evade the rules. The first weeks and months of a cellphone ban will be challenging for teachers, administrators, students and parents. This will be a major culture change, but a worthy one. And it’s quite possible that by the end of the school year, students and educators will look back and think, ‘Why didn’t we do this earlier?’”
While telephones themselves may not directly harm the body, as the FDA says, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s recent findings reveal that their use—particularly through social media and gaming—can significantly harm adolescents’ mental health and well-being. In its 25 September 2024 story titled “New WHO report indicates need for healthier online habits among adolescents”, WHO states “New data from the WHO Regional Office for Europe reveals a sharp rise in problematic social media use among adolescents, with rates increasing from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022. This, coupled with findings that 12% of adolescents are at risk of problematic gaming, raises urgent concerns about the impact of digital technology on the mental health and well-being of young people.”
These findings, according to the WHO, have been generated by the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. It reportedly surveyed almost 280 000 young people aged 11, 13 and 15 across 44 countries and regions in Europe, central Asia and Canada in 2022. “More than 1 in 10 adolescents (11%) showed signs of problematic social media behaviour, struggling to control their use and experiencing negative consequences. Girls reported higher levels of problematic social media use than boys (13% vs 9%).
A third (34%) of adolescents played digital games daily, with more than 1 in 5 (22%) playing for at least 4 hours on days when they engage in gaming. 12 % of adolescents are at risk of problematic gaming, with boys more likely than girls to show signs of problematic gaming (16% vs 7%). The report defines problematic social media use as a pattern of behaviour characterized by addiction-like symptoms. These include an inability to control social media usage, experiencing withdrawal when not using it, neglecting other activities in favour of social media, and facing negative consequences in daily life due to excessive use.”
The rise in problematic social media use among adolescents raises significant concerns about potential impacts on young people, according to the WHO. “Previous research has found that problematic social media users also reported lower mental and social well-being and higher levels of substance use compared to non-problematic users and non-users. This trend, if continued, could have far-reaching consequences for adolescent development and long-term health outcomes. Moreover, problematic social media use has been associated with less sleep and later bedtimes, potentially impacting adolescents’ overall health and academic performance.”
“It’s clear that social media can have both positive and negative consequences on the health and well-being of adolescents,” noted Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe. “That’s why digital literacy education is so important. Yet it remains inadequate in many countries, and where it is available, it often fails to keep pace with young people and rapidly evolving technology. We are seeing the consequences of this gap, with worse likely to come, unless governments, health authorities, teachers and parents recognize the root causes of the current situation and take steps to rectify it.
As millions of children across the Region return to school after the summer holidays, some countries are considering restrictions or outright bans on social media for children up to a certain age. It’s clear we need immediate and sustained action to help adolescents turn the tide on potentially damaging social media use, which has been shown to lead to depression, bullying, anxiety and poor academic performance.”
This UN agency responsible for health on the planet suggests moderation. Dr. Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat works as the Director for Country Health Policies and Systems, WHO Regional Office for Europe. While stating “This study reveals both the promise and the pitfalls of digital engagement for our young people,” Azzopardi-Muscat higghlights “It’s crucial that we take steps to protect youth to allow them to navigate the digital landscape safely and equip them to make informed choices about their online activities, maximizing the benefits while minimizing the risks to their mental and social well-being. In short, they should rule social media, and not have social media ruling them.”
In this sense, the WHO’s warnings about problematic social media use cannot be separated from the widespread presence of telephones in young people’s lives. It is through these very devices that such excessive habits take root and thrive.
In light of the above details, telephones are not inherently harmful when used within regulated safety limits, as agencies like the FDA emphasize regarding radiofrequency exposure. However, they become harmful when their use fuels excessive engagement with social media, gaming, or other addictive platforms, as the WHO warns. In such cases, the risk is not from the devices themselves but from the behaviors they enable; which can contribute to anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and reduced academic performance among adolescents. The harm, therefore, lies in how telephones are employed rather than in the technology itself.