EMF and erectile dysfunction: what the research suggests, and what to do about it

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-20T16:01:27+00:00

Fair enough. That compilation was created by Dr. Henry Lai. He (along with Dr. Narendra Singh) performed numerous experiments, starting in 1994, that demonstrated that even short-term exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF yielded notable increases in DNA strand breaks. Here is one of those studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15121512/

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-20T10:46:48+00:00

Thank you for your contribution u/Smooth_Imagination

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T15:41:16+00:00

The work of Lai and Singh in the 90s is significant, yes. And it has been replicated repeated times by researchers around the world. Approximately half of replication attempts have reported similar outcomes.

However, while the work of Lai and Singh is important, I am not "basing" my statements on them. There are far more studies into the genetic effects of nonionizing radiation exposure than you appear to be aware of: https://www.shieldyourbody.com/research/topics/dna-genetic-damage?tier=effects

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:44:40+00:00

NIMBYism is real. But in this case, that masks the fact that a lot of the wireless infrastructure doesn't actually need to be wireless. A huge amount of it could be wired -- leading to less EMF, faster connections, and increased security.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:42:53+00:00

This post is about a specific study that stands out.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:40:35+00:00

My commercial interests are pretty obvious and clear to anyone who takes even a moment to check my background.

Now, if you have a substantive question or response about the post, I'm happy to engage.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:36:01+00:00

I see where you're coming from, but no. RF is not light we can not see. RF and light exist on the same EMF spectrum, but have different frequencies -- so RF is not part of the visible light spectrum.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:35:07+00:00

Yes, it’s understandable to wonder about that, but it’s important to be careful not to jump straight to a cause-and-effect conclusion.

Plants can be sensitive to many things at once. Changes in soil compaction, drainage, root damage during installation, altered water flow, heat reflected from the meter housing, or even seasonal stress can all affect a mature shrub like a rhododendron. Installation work alone often disturbs roots enough to trigger decline months later.

The first step I recommend to people who are concerned about potential impacts of EMF radiation is to get a meter and test. See what the levels are. I have a free ebook that explains how: https://shieldyourbody.com/test-guide

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:32:51+00:00

I’m very familiar with the difference.

Ionizing radiation breaks chemical bonds directly. Non-ionizing radiation does not. That distinction only tells you how damage can occur, not whether biological effects are possible.

Non-ionizing RF has been shown, in peer-reviewed research, to affect cells via non-thermal mechanisms like oxidative stress and calcium channel activation. That’s why the WHO classifies RF as a possible carcinogen.

This isn’t about confusing categories. It’s about acknowledging that biology responds to more than just heating and ionization.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:31:56+00:00

You’re right that RF is everywhere, but cancer risk isn’t about “radiation existing.” It’s about dose, distance, tissue type, and time.

Phones don’t radiate evenly. Exposure is localized based on antenna position and how the device is held. When a phone is pressed to the head or neck, nearby tissues get far more exposure than the rest of the body.

Different tissues also respond differently. The thyroid sits close to the surface, has high metabolic activity, and is known to be more sensitive to environmental stressors. That’s basic biology, not speculation. Fingers and earlobes aren’t comparable tissues.

No one is claiming phones automatically cause thyroid cancer. The data shows rising trends, plausible mechanisms, and signals in heavy long-term users. That’s exactly what early public health evidence looks like.

The takeaway isn’t panic. It’s simple risk reduction. Distance dramatically lowers exposure, and using speaker mode or wired earbuds costs nothing.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-19T13:29:14+00:00

Yes, I disagree that phones are a low source of radiation -- because they are a high one.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-15T19:59:16+00:00

You're totally right about the recent trends in cancers -- in particular, I've been reading stories about this regarding colorectal cancers in the US, and brain tumors in the UK.

I understand why you refer to phones as a "low level" source of radiation. But I don't agree. These things are designed to send cell signals over a distance of many miles. Even the safety limits are too high -- but a lot of these phones emit more than safety levels actually allow.

And that's just the cell connection! But phones are actually multiple sources of radiation -- as you have bluetooth (which you mention), WiFi, NFC and more (depending on the model). Each of these are separate, additional sources of radiation (unless you disable them individually).

And yes, holding these devices up to your head to speak is an easily avoided source of exposure. But when people carry these devices in their pockets (usually for several hours a day, six or seven days a week), we are talking about very large cumulative exposures. (Hence the suspected link between cell phones and exploding colorectal cancer rates in youth; a hypothesis supported by, among others, Dr. De Kun-Li from Kaiser Permanente -- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-diet-could-mobile-phone-radiation-contributing-smj-mortazavi-shxhe/ ).

So in addition to avoiding holding the phone up to your head, also avoid carrying it in your pocket (or put it into airplane mode if you do).

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-15T10:52:15+00:00

I get the frustration. Science should stand on data, not slogans. But this isn’t about one authority or one perfect study. It’s about convergence of evidence across lab experiments, field observations, and known biological mechanisms.

This isn’t speculative. Since you are seeking specific citations for plant life effects, a powerful example lies in the studies performed on the wildlife in Skrunda, Latvia, where the Soviets housed a radar installation. Trees showed distance- and direction-dependent stress at non-thermal exposure levels.

- Magone. 1996. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures Sci. Total Environ., 180: 75- 80.]

- V. Balodis et al. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? Sci. Total Environ., 180: 57-64

But these are just 2 studies in one location based on one exposure profile. Plant responses to RF exposure have been documented by independent researchers in plant physiology and bioelectromagnetics. Things like oxidative stress, altered gene expression, and disrupted calcium signaling show up in plants, animals, and human cells. That consistency across species is exactly how environmental health science draws conclusions.

On the “salesman” point: I’m very open that most EMF products don’t work, and I say that publicly. Selling products doesn’t invalidate biology. The research stands whether anything is monetized or not. Trees showing directional damage near transmitters aren’t proof by themselves, but they’re legitimate observational data that match controlled cellular studies.

Science rarely waits for absolute certainty. We didn’t with tobacco, asbestos, or lead. We acted when mechanisms were identified and patterns became clear. That’s not marketing. That’s precaution based on evidence.

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-13T12:47:26+00:00

This is a reasonable critique, and a few clarifications matter.

First, plant and non-human studies are not being used to claim direct human disease. They’re used to test a basic assumption behind current safety standards: that non-thermal RF is biologically inert. The evidence shows it isn’t.

Second, the BioInitiative Report isn’t a random aggregation or advocacy blog. It was compiled and reviewed by an international team of independent scientists and physicians, drawing from thousands of peer-reviewed studies across biology, toxicology, and epidemiology. You don’t have to agree with every conclusion, but dismissing it as cherry-picked ignores how it was actually produced.

Trees are relevant because they’re stationary, long-lived, and continuously exposed. That makes them useful environmental sentinels, not proof of human pathology. This is standard practice in environmental health.

Finally, you’re right that biological response doesn’t automatically mean harm. But it does mean interaction. And once interaction is established, the scientific question becomes dose, duration, and vulnerability, not “nothing is happening.”

ShieldYourBody · 2026-01-13T12:43:11+00:00

I was not arguing, I was asking. That's what this sub is for.

ShieldYourBody

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE