New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

RFK, Jr., shifts focus to questioning whether cell phones are safe. Here’s what the science says

The possible health effects of radiofrequency waves emitted by cell phones has been a subject of debate for decades

Side view of woman in silhouette using smartphone against illuminated blue screen

Oscar Wong

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is worried about cell phones. Under the department, the Food and Drug Administration has removed webpages that asserted the devices are safe, according to the Wall Street Journal. And HHS, headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., reportedly plans to research the possible health effects of radiation emitted by cell phones.

The FDA removed online information that said scientists have not connected exposure to radiofrequency (RF) waves, emitted by cell phones, to health problems in users.

Some of the removed webpages contained “old conclusions,” an HHS spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal. The spokesperson also said that researching cell phone radiation would “identify gaps in knowledge.” The agency provided a similar statement to Scientific American, adding that the research was “directed by President Trump’s MAHA Commission.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The administration has not provided any new evidence for the moves. So what does the science about cell phones say?

It’s a “complex subject,” says Kenneth Foster, a professor emeritus at the department of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied the health risks of cell phones.

“People have been arguing about health effects of RF radiation from cell phones for decades,” he says.

For years, the official stance of federal health agencies such as the FDA was that there was no evidence of a causal link between cell phone use and cancer. That conclusion was also shared by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates cell phones. Still, some scientists have raised alarms about cell phones and potential health risks, including cancer, although more quality research is needed to full understand what, if any, effect cell phones have on the body.

In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, has noted that radiofrequency waves are “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” but it hasn’t identified a causal link. (The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) And a handful of studies in lab rats suggest that exposure to RF radiation may be linked with cancer. But it’s unclear whether those results would apply to humans, and studies in humans have been inconsistent and limited in scope and efficacy.

What is clear, however, is that cell phones do seem to have one obvious negative health effect—on our mental health, Foster says.

“[There] seems to be stronger evidence for cognitive effects from using cell phones and excessive use of screens, a different matter,” he says. “Also don’t text while driving!”

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe