Skip to content
Home » Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review 

Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review 

  • 6 min read

Expert Call for the World Health Organization to Pause Monograph on Wireless Radiation Health Risk Until Independent Review

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, has called for the World Health Organization (WHO) to pause the publication of its forthcoming monograph on cell phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation health effects. He urges this action pending a comprehensive critical review by independent, un-conflicted experts.

This post is reposted from the website of Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner found here. 

The WHO Monograph on Radio Frequency Radiation Health Effects should be put on hold pending a comprehensive critical review.

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned twelve systematic reviews (SRs) in preparation for a new WHO monograph on the health effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The WHO last published a monograph on this potential health hazard 32 years ago in 1993. Thus, the new monograph will be used to inform global public, occupational, and environmental health RF-EMF standards for several decades.

Many current and former ICNIRP members, whose mission is to develop and disseminate EMF exposure guidelines, were involved in the design and conduct of these SRs. Hence, the monograph will likely be used to justify ICNIRP’s RF-EMF exposure standards which only protect against the heating risks from RF-EMF exposure. (Yet, the one SR intended to address heating risks was never assigned by WHO: “SR10–Effect of exposure to heat from any source on pain, burn, cataract, and heat-related illnesses.”)
Eleven of the twelve WHO SRs have been published to date in a special issue of the journal Environment International. Although these SRs were all subjected to the journal’s peer review process prior to publication, the peer review process is often imperfect. A handful of peer reviewers simply do not have the capacity to critique all aspects of a complex systematic review, especially one with many meta-analyses. Moreover, the authors of these SRs may not have complied with all of the reviewers’ criticisms.
The journal asked me to serve as a peer reviewer for one of these SRs–an activity I have performed more than 70 times in my career. However, unlike my previous experiences the process was extremely frustrating. Systematic reviews require a multitude of macro- and micro-decisions.  When conducted by biased investigative teams, systematic reviews can generate erroneous conclusions and policy implications. By design, this SR excluded most of the relevant research; hence, its conclusion is very limited in scope. Although the authors complied with some of the reviewers’ suggestions, the authors refused to deviate from several problematic decisions made in their protocol paper which was published several years earlier. After two revisions, the special issue editor allowed a critically, flawed SR paper to be published in the journal.

 

Although I don’t have information about the quality of peer review for the other SRs, to date several SRs have been criticized in peer-reviewed journal articles:

Moreover, to date the authors of three SRs have issued corrigenda after publication of their SRs to correct significant errors:
  • 2024, Bosch-Capblanch X, Esu E, Moses Oringanje C, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Auer C, Meremikwu M, Röösli M. Corrigendum to “The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies” [Environ. Int. 187 (2024) 108612] [erratum] Environ Int 190: 108892 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004781
  • 2025, Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Belackova L, Verbeek J, Pacchierotti F. Corrigendum to “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals” [Environ. Inter. 180 (2023) 108178] [erratum] Environ Int 196: 109273 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025000248
  • 2025, Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Belackova L, Verbeek J, Pacchierotti F. Corrigendum to “Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro” [Environ. Int. 185 (2024) 108509], Environment International, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109449. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025002004
How many more significant errors or major problems will be uncovered by the authors or by critical readers of the 12 WHO SRs?
Given widespread exposure to anthropogenic sources of RF-EMF in recent times and its potential adverse health impacts, the forthcoming WHO monograph on RF-EMF health effects should be put on hold until a comprehensive review of all aspects of the 12 SRs is completed by experts who have no actual or even apparent conflicts of interest.
 

This post is reposted from the website of Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner found here. 

Tags: