Interview with Dr. Ulrich Warnke on the status of research
The interview was conducted by Peter Hensinger and published in diagnose:funk on February 5, 2026. The following English text is a machine translation.
Dr. Ulrich Warnke (*1945) is a biologist and biophysicist and worked as a scientist at the University of Saarbrücken, Germany, until his retirement. He made a name for himself as a bee researcher, particularly by demonstrating the electrosensitivity of bees. He published works on the risks of mobile radiation over 20 years ago. He showed that electromagnetic fields disrupt the redox balance in the body by triggering an overproduction of free radicals – oxidative cell stress, which is now considered the basis of many inflammatory and chronic diseases.
1. diagnose:funk : Dr. Warnke, once again there was a heated discussion about whether mobile phone radiation is harmful to health. Eleven reviews for the WHO are intended to prove that there are no risks. The Federal Office for Radiation Protection, but also the Swiss advisory group BERENIS, also declare that there are still no high-quality studies that prove damage below the limit values. Further research is necessary. How do you evaluate these statements?
Ulrich Warnke: I consider this argument to be unacceptable. I’ve been hearing them for decades. If it is claimed that there are no high-quality studies, one must ask: Why haven’t government authorities initiated these studies themselves long ago? I wonder what technically highlights those who today judge their scientific colleagues/women so derogatorily that they dare to degrade existing peer-reviewed studies to such an extent.
In fact, thousands of peer-reviewed papers have existed since the 1990s. The Bioengineer Henry Lai documented by the University of Washington, over 2,500 studies since 1990 show biological effects of electromagnetic fields –many of them on DNA damage and oxidative stress.[1] And also diagnose:funk documented on his EMF database: Data continuous studies that show effects.
There are also large long-term government studies such as those in the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).[2] These animal studies, conducted on behalf of the FDA, showed „clear evidence“ of malignant cardiac tumors and „evidence“ of brain tumors from cellular radiation. Simply dismissing such results as irrelevant contradicts any established form of risk assessment.
The pattern is known historically: for asbestos, lead, tobacco or DDT, the warning signals were there, decades before political recognition. The greater the economic interests, the longer there was hesitation. When it comes to mobile communications, we experience the same thing –but with almost widespread long-term exposure of the population, which affects everyone.
2. diagnose:funk : In your opinion, what health effects caused by electromagnetic fields has research proven so far?
Ulrich Warnke: The findings are broad. DNA strand breaks have been repeatedly described in cell and animal studies, such as work by Lai & Singh as early as the mid-1990s. Reproductive studies show reduced sperm quality and fertility disorders, with high-quality reviews such as that from South Korea Kim et al. (2022), the Report of the STOA (2021) and the Swiss soldier study.[3] epidemiological studies report increased risks for certain types of tumors and neurological symptoms with intensive exposure.[4]
A central connecting element is oxidative stress. Studies from different countries show that electromagnetic fields increase the formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen compounds. These findings are particularly consistent in tissues with high energy turnover – nervous system, gonads and immune system.
It is biologically anticipated that not every person will react the same way, age, pre-existing conditions, genetic predispositions and additional environmental pressures play a major role. However, it is precisely this variability that is often misused as an argument against the relevance of the findings.
3. diagnose:funk : You have been pointing in for decades your work towards oxidative cell stress.[5] What is meant by this, what does it do – and why is this mechanism considered proven?
Ulrich Warnke: Oxidative cell stress describes an imbalance between free radicals and the antioxidant protection systems of the body. Electromagnetic fields have been shown to promote education reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. A key role is played in this nitric oxide (NO). Studies by Miura et al. (1993) showed as early as the 1990’s that weak radio frequency fields increase NO production in the brain. Further work, for example by Paredi et al. (2001), confirmed increased NO release in humans during mobile phone use. As a result, peroxinitrite, a highly toxic compound, is increasingly formed DNA,enzymes and mitochondria damages. This non-thermal mechanism explains why effects can occur well below the applicable limits.
The evidence has been confirmed in major reviews, particularly the review of Prof. Meike Mevissen (University of Bern, 2021). In their evaluation of animal and cell studies, a shift in oxidative equilibrium by radiofrequency radiation – was shown to occur on a recurring basis even at low doses.[6]
From the perspective of the precautionary principle, this mechanism is particularly relevant because oxidative stress is not a harmless momentary reaction. It is considered the common starting point for many chronic diseases – from neurodegenerative diseases to cardiovascular diseases and cancer. That is why the discussion about mobile radio radiation is not a marginal question, but a fundamental question of modern environmental medicine.
4. diagnose:funk : Many of these studies are devalued by the BfS and excluded from the risk assessment on the grounds that they are not reproducible and therefore not relevant. How do you see that?
Ulrich Warnke: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of biological research. Living systems do not react mechanically. Different field strengths, frequencies, modulations and biological output states inevitably lead to varying results. Complex physical interactions play a role, especially in electromagnetic fields. If studies under different conditions still show similar biological effects –such as oxidative stress –, this is a strong evidence signal. Reviews like that by Schürmann & Mevissen (2021) come to exactly this conclusion.
5. diagnose:funk : When do you think a risk is considered proven?
Ulrich Warnke: A risk is considered proven if independent studies consistently point in the same direction and a plausible mechanism of action is known. Both apply here. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in biology – that precautionary principle requires action when it comes to serious information.
6. diagnose:funk : Are there studies on the mechanism of action of oxidative cell stress that consistently go in the same direction?
Ulrich Warnke: Yes – and with remarkable clarity. Especially when it comes to oxidative cell stress, we have one of the most consistent findings in all mobile phone research. Studies from different countries, using different models and methods, have been producing very similar results for decades.
Systematic reviews are particularly important here. A milestone is the large review by Meike Mevissen and Daniel Schürmann from 2021, which in International Journal of Molecular Sciences was published. It evaluated several hundred animal and cell studies. The result is clear: artificially generated electromagnetic fields lead to recurrent overproduction of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and thus to oxidative stress – often already at exposures below the applicable limits.
What makes this review particularly convincing is the range of endpoints examined. It’s not about a single biomarker, but about a whole pattern: increased lipid peroxidation, alterations of antioxidant enzyme systems such as superoxide dismutase or catalase, DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction. It is precisely this combination that is typical of chronic oxidative stress.
7. diagnose:funk : Why were you sure 30 years ago that a mechanism of damage to non-ionizing radiation is oxidative stress?
Ulrich Warnke: Previous works by Henry Lai and Narendra Singh as early as the 1990’s, DNA strand breaks in rats’ brains after high frequency exposure – showed a finding that can only be explained biochemically via oxidative processes. There are also human experimental studies. Work by Ilhan (2004), Paredi (2001), Miura (1993), and many others showed,[7] that even short-term cell phone exposure in humans influences nitric oxide production. Nitric oxide is a central switch in oxidative and nitrosative stress. Its overproduction leads to the formation of peroxinitrite, a highly reactive substance that causes lasting damage to cells. Later studies from Europe and Asia confirmed these mechanisms in different tissues.
8. diagnose:funk : That was the effect of radiation from GSM at the time, does that also apply to the frequencies introduced below?
Ulrich Warnke: It is noteworthy that these findings occur across technologies. They were observed in older mobile communications standards as well as in Wi-Fi and newer digital signal forms. This clearly speaks against the thesis that these are accidental or artifact-related effects. Looking at all this work together, a consistent overall picture emerges: different studies, different models, different endpoints – but the same mechanism of action. That is exactly scientific evidence. Anyone who claims that oxidative cell stress is „not proven“ in view of this data is ignoring the state of research.
9.diagnose:funk : The review by Hu et al. points out mitochondrial effects.[8] You talked about mitochondrial disease 20 years ago.[9] [9] Can you explain that?
Ulrich Warnke: Mitochondria are responsible for the energy production of cells. Studies, among others, by Xu et al.(2010), show DNA damage to mitochondria from radiofrequency radiation.[10] Electromagnetic fields activate voltage-controlled calcium channels, which increases oxidative stress and affects energy production. This clinical picture is called „Acquired Energy Dyssymbiosis Syndrome“ (AEDS) denotes and is related to chronic fatigue, neurodegenerative diseases, heart problems and cancer. It is particularly critical that damage to mitochondrial DNA can be inherited from the mother’s side.
The review by Hu et al. from 2021 is confirmed by the latest research. It shows how electromagnetic fields in the frequency range of mobile communications, including WLAN, influence neurotransmitter systems in the brain. This leads to neurotransmitter imbalance, associated with oxidative stress and apoptosis, so cellular damage and also the increased activity of voltage-gated calcium channels, which contributes to mitochondrial disease.
10. diagnose:funk : The authorities, under the influence of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, argue that these effects are primarily proven in animal studies and cannot be transferred to humans, what do you counter this argument?
Ulrich Warnke: Animal studies are the backbone of medical risk assessment. Without them, there would be no drug approval and no environmental or consumer protection. The basic biological mechanisms are highly comparable in humans and animals, anyone who devalues animal studies here is leaving the ground of scientific logic.
The research shows consistently: Mobile radiation has a biological effect – not via heat, but via oxidative stress and causes mitochondrial damage and long-term regulatory disorders. The scientific evidence is there. The open question is no longer, if risks exist, but how long they still are wanted to be ignored politically.
11. diagnose:funk : There has been progress, especially recently. Important state institutions have confirmed these risks!
Ulrich Warnke: Yes, that is remarkable. In addition to the National Toxicology Programme (USA), European institutions have also documented evidence of cancer and fertility effects. The STOA Study, issued by the EU Parliament’s Technology Consequences Committee, noted that there is sufficient evidence of cancer in animals and evidence of risks to humans. The European Environment Agency documented the risk of cancer in an article by colleague Hardell in 2016 and also warned of repeated violations of the precautionary principle.[11] And even in the TAB of the German Bundestag[12] will the NTP and Ramazzini studies[13] praised for cancer as the best studies conducted to date.
12. diagnose:funk : But the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection still says that there are no risks to be feared below the limit values. Can you say something more about the role of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection!
Ulrich Warnke: Yes – and I am expressly referring to the statements of Prof. Meike Mevissen, professor at the University of Bern and long-time member of the Swiss BERENIS Advisory Group. Their public statements are so important because they come from direct scientific practice and do not speculate from outside.
Mevissen in an interview with Infosperber[14] very clearly stated that institutions such as the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) systematically „discuss away“ risks. She criticizes the fact that the BfS expects science to come to the conclusion that there are no effects – so that no political decisions have to be made. This is an exceptionally clear statement from an established scientist.
Mevissen describes how her own research was hindered. At Work for the WHO-EMF project there have been attempts to influence the selection of studies taken into account. She reports that she has been suggested to lump together studies to dilute statistical effects – a procedure considered scientifically inadmissible in experimental toxicology.
13. diagnose:funk : The Federal Office for Radiation Protection insists: “Protect the limit values!” This is one of the biggest problems for us as a consumer protection organization. This means that MPs do not want to talk about risks, courts see no reason to review lawsuits, journalists write all-clear articles and politicians hide behind this argument and thus justify inaction.
Ulrich Warnke: The BfS bases its assessments almost exclusively on limit values that only protect against acute thermal effects. Non-thermal effects – exactly the effects that Mevissen et al. in their reviews oxidative stress and cancer has been demonstrated – are systematically classified as „not relevant“ or „not sufficiently substantiated“ even if they have been reproduced in high-quality animal and cell studies.
It’s a fundamental contradiction after all: Animal studies are considered essential in drug and chemical assessment. In mobile communications, these results are suddenly declared to be „not transferable to humans“. This is not a scientific logic, but a political setting. The basic biological mechanisms – oxidative stress, DNA damage, mitochondrial dysfunction – are highly conserved in mammals.
I find Mevissen’s suggestion that this attitude influences research itself particularly alarming. When scientists know that only „no-risk results“ are accepted, massive pressure to adapt arises. Mevissen openly calls this by its name: research has become highly political, and the implicit requirement that there should be no health risks hinders scientific work.
From my point of view, Mevissen’s statement confirms what many have suspected for years: The Federal Office for Radiation Protection does not deny risks because there are no indications, but because these indications do not fit into the existing assessment model. Instead of adapting the model to the state of research, the findings are interpreted appropriately.
This is a serious omission for a state protection authority. The precautionary principle does not require final proof, but rather responsible action in the event of plausible biological risks. When even a scientist commissioned by government agencies publicly says that her research has been hindered, it is no longer a marginal aspect, but a serious structural problem.
14. diagnose:funk : Dear Mr. Warnke, thank you for the interview and especially for your work over the last 60 years. We hope with them that scientific findings will prevail against profit orientation.
Ulrich Warnke: You do this political work as a diagnosis: radio, citing our scientific findings. As a scientist, I would like to thank you for the continuous review of the study situation and, above all, for informing the public and politicians about it.
15. diagnose:funk : Thank you, universities are unfortunately increasingly changing from ivory towers of independent research to concrete and propaganda castles of industry. This makes it all the more important that we continue our work.
The interview was conducted by Peter Hensinger (board diagnose:funk)
Sources in the interview transcript have been inserted by diagnose:funk. For the interview, Dr. Warnke developed a background paper, which explains the scientific basics.
Additional:
1. Further interviews with Dr. Ulrich Warnke:
- BEEFI Insect Study (II) (2024): Interview with bee researcher U. Warnke: “The results must be taken into account in political considerations.”
- Interview with Dr. U. Warnke (2021): “If politicians continue down this path, it could happen that proof will still be demanded even though the majority of humanity is already chronically ill.”
2. A historical video from 1995
- 3Sat – Science Under Cross-Examination – Electrosmog.
- Biologist Isabel Wilke from the Catalysis Institute and Dr. Ulrich Warnke (Saarbrücken University) discuss the risks with the presenter (starting at 22:15). From 17:30 onwards, Professor Lebrecht von Klitzing‘s WLAN experiments on the effects of radiation on the brain are documented.
- Language: German. The video has a subtitle button, which appears after starting the video.
Footnotes
- Henry Lai’s Research Summaries: https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/ ↩︎
- National Toxicology Program (2018): Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. US. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf ↩︎
- Kim S, Han D, Ryu J, Kim K, Kim YH (2021): Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality – No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Environ Res 2021; 202: 111784; s. a. https://www.diagnose-funk.org/1797
STOA – Studie : https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1789
Schweizer Soldatenstudie: Rita Rahban, Alfred Senn, Serge Nef, Martin Rӧӧsli. Association between self-reported mobile phone use and the semen quality of young men, Andrology 2023
Download der Studie: https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(23)01875-7/fulltext ↩︎ - Siehe dazu die diagnose-funk Reihe Überblicke: ÜBERBLICK Nr. 2: Ist Mobilfunk krebserregend?, ÜBERBLICK Nr. 4: Wirkt Mobilfunk auf das Gehirn? https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail&newsid=2090 ↩︎
- Warnke / Hensinger (2013): Steigende „Burn-out“- Inzidenz durch technisch erzeugte magnetische und elektromagnetische Felder des Mobil- und Kommunikationsfunks, umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft ↩︎
- Schuermann, D.; Mevissen, M. Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073772, https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1692 ↩︎
- Ilhan A, Gurel A, Armutcu F et al. (2004): Ginkgo biloba prevents mobile phone-induced oxidative stress in rat brain. Clin Chim Acta 340 (12): 153162.
Paredi P, Kharitonov, SA, Hanazawa T et al. (2001): Local vasodilator response to mobile phones. Lokale VasodilatorAntwort auf Handys. Laryngoscope 111 (1): 159162.
Miura M, Takayama K, Okada J (1993): Increase in nitric oxide and cyclic GMP of rat cerebellum by radio frequency burst-type electromagnetic field radiation , J Physiol 1993; 461: 513-524, https://www.emf-portal.org/de/article/3395
Weitere frühere Studien zu ROS im Artikel von Warnke / Hensinger (2013), s. Anm. 5 ↩︎ - Hu C, Zuo H, Li Y (2021): Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Neurotransmitters in the Brain. Front Public Heal. 2021;9 (August):1-15; DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.691880 https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2287 ↩︎
- Warnke / Hensinger (2013):
“The radiation-induced disease ‘Acquired Energy Dyssymbiosis Syndrome’ describes a deficiency of cellular energy – coupled with a disruption of the cellular environment. This leads to mitochondrial dysfunction: energy production (ATP) is blocked; the powerhouses of cellular energy transform into prolific sources of free radicals. These changes have serious consequences:
–1. Inflammatory processes spread and release further substances that are harmful in excess (tumor necrosis factor TNFα and, repeatedly, nitric oxide). It should also be considered that inflammation is constantly increasing in our industrialized society, and that arteriosclerosis, like heart attacks – the number one cause of death – is ultimately based on inflammation. This view has already become established among medical scientists.
–2. Aerobic glycolysis (glycolysis despite the presence of oxygen) is considered The ’emergency power generator’ is activated – which in turn is associated with:
—*Stimulation of proto-oncogenes (precursors of cancer genes)
—*Increased release of superoxide radicals
—*Lactic acidosis (over-acidification).
–3. Finally, the mitochondrial genome mutates. This pathological change can also be inherited maternally. It burdens the offspring and is passed down through generations. ↩︎ - XU S, Zhou Z, Zhang L et al. (2010): Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Res 1311: 189–196 ↩︎
- Europäische Umweltagentur (2004, 2013): Späte Lehren aus frühen Warnungen, Download: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1039 ↩︎
- Bericht des Ausschusses für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung, Drucksache 20/5646 (2023): „Mögliche gesundheitliche Auswirkungen verschiedener Frequenzbereiche elektromagnetischer Felder (HF-EMF).“ PDF-Link: https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/056/2005646.pdf, Artikelserie mit Analysen zum TAB-Bericht: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/1954 ↩︎
- Falcioni et al. (2018): Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission, Environ Res 2018; 165: 496-503, https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=1431
National Toxicology Program (2018): Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 MHz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. US. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf ↩︎ - Infosperber / Pascal Sigg, 16.01.2026: «Unsere Forschung wurde behindert», https://www.infosperber.ch/politik/schweiz/unsere-forschung-wurde-behindert/ ↩︎
Discover more from Multerland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
