The post Special Expert Theodora Scarato appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Newly published letter concludes the WHO cell phone cancer review cannot offer safety assurances.

With the rapid expansion of wireless technology, concerns about its health effects, including cancer risks, continue to grow. A recently published critique highlights why relying solely on human  epidemiology  studies are not  sufficient to address this pressing public health concern.

A Letter to the Editor “Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer: Epidemiology is not enough!” published in Environment International by Agostino Di Ciaula, Maria Grazia Petronio, Fausto Bersani and Fiorella Belpoggi of the International Society of Doctors for Environment argues that a WHO funded systematic review by Karipidis et al. 2024 is insufficient for concluding cell phones and wireless technology is safe. 

Although the WHO review seemed to offer cell phone safety assurances, even among long-term users, Di Ciaula et al. 2025 argues that the evidence supporting such safety conclusions is limited, because the human studies reviewed in the paper have selection biases, imprecise exposure assessments, and insufficient adjustment for confounding factors. Ignoring these issues could lead to an underestimation of the potential risks.

The Missing Piece: Experimental and Animal Studies

Di Ciaula et al. 2025 states that Karipidis et al.’s conclusions fail to incorporate findings from experimental and animal research. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. Since then, several experimental animal studies, such as those by Falcioni et al. (2018),  Lerchl et al. (2015), and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (2018) have strengthened the argument for a causal link between RF-EMF exposure and cancer. These carefully controlled animal studies all found associations between wireless exposure and increased cancers. 

By focusing solely on human epidemiological data, the WHO study dismisses a broader scientific perspective that includes cancer associations and  biological impacts demonstrated in controlled animal experiments. Di Ciaula et al. warns that relying on human case counts alone is a dangerous assumption, as it implies that we must wait for significant harm to manifest before taking precautionary and protective  measures.

“Excluding the results of studies on animal carcinogenicity from the discussion on a health topic of primary social and regulatory relevance, as that of RF-EMF exposure, offers a very partial scenario and generates uncertainty. This approach reinforces the anti-ethical belief that epidemiological assessments simply based on the “count” of cancer cases in humans (even if approximate and conditioned by a number of possible confounders) would be a privileged way to demonstrate the carcinogenicity (or the lack of carcinogenicity) of widely diffused, potentially harmful environmental agents. This is an extremely dangerous assumption, as it is equivalent to accept that potentially detrimental effects can only be determined a posteriori, after the considered agent has had time to damage public health.”

Di Ciaula et al. emphasizes the need for a public health approach whereby wireless exposure is minimized, especially for children. 

“Resorting to caution” in RF-EMF use—especially among vulnerable populations—should be a priority until stronger epidemiological evidence emerges. Future studies should integrate experimental findings and acknowledge the evolving nature of exposure when assessing potential health risks.

This newly published review echoes the critique published by the International Commission for the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (2025)  and a critique by Hardell and Nilsson (2025) which also documented the inaccuracies and conflicts of interest in the WHO funded review.  

Read the Letter to the Editor “Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of cancer: Epidemiology is not enough!” published in Environment International by Agostino Di Ciaula, Maria Grazia Petronio, Fausto Bersani and Fiorella Belpoggi.

Watch Fiorella Belpoggi PhD present on the Ramazzini Institute animal studies here. 

The post Animal Studies Find Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Can Increase Cancer appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Scientific research links cell phone radiation to cancer 

Yet another scientific critique of the WHO funded review on cell phone’s RF radiation and cancer has been published highlighting several errors, omissions, and conflicts of interests in the Karipidis et al. 2024 review that misleadingly offers cell phone safety assurances. 

“A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks” by Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson (2025) was published in the Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 

The paper focuses on the cancer risk of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation.  Sources of RF include mobile phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi and wireless devices and networks. 

Hardell and Nilsson state Karipidis et al. overlooked research showing increased risks for brain tumours in the most exposed groups, the most exposed part of the head, and longest latency time from first exposure to tumour diagnosis. Further, they state the “no risk” conclusions are based on selective inclusion of very few and low exposure studies.

Hardell and Nilsson document the numerous conflicts of interest of several of the authors of the WHO review and they also detail the major flaws in studies that  the review relied on such as the industry financed Danish cohort. 

“Ties to industry are a potential bias that may influence the scope, design and performance of research. Industry sponsored research is more likely to present a result favourable to the industry.” 

Hardell and Nilsson call for a retraction of the paper. They detail the scientific evidence indicating that scientific research finds increased cancer risks of cancer, contrary to the WHO funded safety assurances. 

“This WHO evaluation is contradicted by scientific results that show increased risks of cancer from exposure to RF-radiation from mobile and cordless phones, transmitters, and base stations. Other scientists have concluded, after reviewing the available evidence, that RF-radiation may increase the risk of cancer.” 

“This article analyzes the Karipidis et al review and highlights several errors, omissions, and conflicts of interests that may explain the conclusions of no cancer risk. The flawed evaluation of scientific facts should lead to retraction of the article.”

This newly published review echoes the critique published by the International Commission for the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields which also documented the inaccuracies and conflicts of interest in the WHO funded review.  

Read “A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks” by Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson (2025).

Co-author Dr. Lennart Hardell  is an ICBE-EMF expert. He has a long career as both a physician oncologist and as a cancer epidemiologist and has published more than 380 peer-reviewed scientific articles.  Dr. Hardell was an invited member of the scientific working groups of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluation of RF. Watch him present on the human epidemiology studies of cell phone and cancer risk in the video below. 

The post New Paper: Science links cell phone radiation to cancer appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

The post Experts challenge WHO research on Cell Phone Radiation and Cancer Risk appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

January 15, 2025

Microwave News, which has covered EMF issues since 1981, featured the ICBE-EMF’s Letter to the Editor published in the journal Environment International in its longer investigation into the WHO reviews. 

“The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has published a scathing assessment of Ken Karipidis’s WHO systematic review on RF radiation and cancer. ICBE-EMF, which was formed a few years ago as a counter to ICNIRP, spells out five key flaws in a letter published in Environment International.”

Microwave News also featured the Karipidis et al. response and ICBE-EMFs rebuttal. 

Read more about the WHO reviews and ICBE-EMF’s feature at Microwave News | Old Wine in New Bottles 

The post Microwave News Features ICBE-EMF Letter on Flawed WHO Cell Phone Cancer Reviews appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

Animal Studies Find Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Can Increase Cancer

February 25, 2025

New Paper: Science links cell phone radiation to cancer

February 25, 2025

WHO Research on Cell Phone and Wireless Health Risks

January 15, 2025

Timeline: WHO Initiatives on Wireless Radio Frequency Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Health Effects

January 15, 2025

New Publication: Scientists Find WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study “Scientifically Flawed”

January 15, 2025

Scientific Response to the Rebuttal of Karipidis et al. to the ICBE-EMF’s Criticisms of the WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Review

January 14, 2025

The post WHO Research on Cell Phone and Wireless Health Risks appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

The post Timeline: WHO Initiatives on Wireless Radio Frequency Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Health Effects appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

The post New Publication: Scientists Find WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study “Scientifically Flawed” appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

The post Scientific Response to the Rebuttal of Karipidis et al. to the ICBE-EMF’s Criticisms of the WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Review appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

There are numerous hardware and software changes that can reduce exposure to cell phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Research links cell phone and wireless to numerous health effects from cancer and DNA damage to impacts on the reproductive, endocrine, immune and neurological system.  

The ICBE-EMF published the peer reviewed paper “Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on April 4, 2023 detailing several engineering solutions for cell phone radiation. While government limits for involuntary environmental ambient RF exposures (such as from cell towers and 5G ) need to be significantly strengthened, there are numerous measures that can be taken in the meantime. These six fixes can go a long way toward reducing cell phone radiation exposure from a phone.  

Six Engineering Fixes

1) Use existing body sensors in Android and iPhone devices to detect when the phone is near the body and automatically turn off emissions.

Explanation: Body sensors already installed in cellphones are used to disable “soft” buttons on the screen to avoid inadvertent activation when holding the phone against the skin. These sensors could be modified to send instructions to turn off phone emissions as well. With only a small change in behavior—holding the phone slightly away from the head, using the speakerphone, or using a headset—the user would dramatically reduce cellphone radiation exposure. 

Cellphone radiation “blocking” has already been implemented for several other purposes.

2) Use existing technology—already patented by many cellphone manufacturers—to reduce exposure from 2 to 100 times.

Explanation: When certain materials are put under cellphone antennas, they reduce radiation exposure through a process that causes interference. Incorporated properly, these materials would leave cellphone communications unaffected and tend to use battery power more judiciously.

3) Program cell phone software to choose Wi-Fi for calling whenever it is available. 

Explanation: Calls using cell towers generally require the phone to run at between 0.6 watts and 3.0 watts in transmitter power. Wi-Fi calls typically require below 0.1 watts. Switching to Wi-Fi whenever available also extends battery life.

4) Reduce “handshake” transmissions by eliminating them when the user and therefore the user’s phone are not moving.

Explanation: Handshake transmissions allow cell towers to track cellphone locations. This keeps the phone in contact with the nearest available cell tower as the user moves by car, by foot or by other means. There is no need for continuous handshakes if the phone is stationary, for example, on a bedside table for the night. The phone’s built-in GPS and accelerometer make reducing handshakes possible by tracking changes in location and motion.

5) Make airplane mode the default setting.

Explanation: Airplane mode prevents a cellphone from transmitting. When the phone is not in use, it could be placed in airplane mode automatically until the user needs to use it again. Users can, of course, easily change this setting for times when their phones must be connected to the cellular network to receive anticipated calls, texts and email. Airplane mode also conserves power.

6) An application could be used to limit the duration of cellphone calls.

Explanation: Software could monitor cumulative radiation exposure in real-time and adjust the duration of phone calls to limit exposure. The necessary functions are already available in existing applications except for a function that will end calls (with appropriate warning) when pre-set exposure limits are reached.

Regulatory Blind Spots

Current safety standards for cell phone radiation do not protect public health (i.e ICNIRP, IEEE and FCC limits). Below is a list of seven blind spots that reflect a deep misunderstanding of toxicology, biology, and medicine. 

1) Inappropriate focus on a single variable, heat, while ignoring non-thermal effects.

Explanation: There is no known threshold for the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in humans. In other words, all cellphone and cell tower RFR will cause biological effects in human cells regardless of the level of exposure. The current regulation only considers heating from RFR as a danger and so disregards the effects caused by much lower exposure levels.

2) Reliance on acute exposure experiments performed over remarkably short times.

Explanation: Current standards are based on exposures lasting 40 to 60 minutes. Humans are now facing exposure to cellphone and cell tower radiation 24/7. The testing that current standards rely on has little relation to the chronic exposures to which humans are now subjected virtually continuously.

3) The safety recommendations overlooked important time and amplitude characteristics of the signals.

Explanation: The current standards allow for “averaging” of RFR intensity over periods of 6 minutes for occupational settings and 30 minutes for the general public. This ignores the vast and extremely rapid variations of the digital signals produced by today’s devices, variations that set off biological effects at the cell level. Digital data “bursts” happen many times a second, going from very low energy to very high energy. These peaks are especially important in causing biological effects.

To analogize, imagine someone punching you relentlessly for six minutes. In order to throw a punch, that person has to withdraw his/her fist each time and then accelerate it toward you again. But if you take the average distance from the attacker’s hand to your face for those six minutes, the attacker can claim that on average his/her fist was only halfway between the two of you and that therefore he/she on average never even touched you. This is analogous to the averaging allowed under the standards.

4) Carcinogenicity, electromagnetic sensitivity, and other diseases and health conditions were ignored.

Explanation: FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP limits only consider effects from heating as “established” so it is all they were designed to protect for. Research has documented health impacts at levels well below these limits. Epidemiological studies have reported significant associations between exposure to RFR and increased risks of glioma [brain tumors], acoustic neuroma [inner ear tumor], and thyroid cancer, among others. Yet cancer is not an effects that FCC, ICNIRP and FCC limits were designed to address. Despite exploration and documentation of electromagnetic sensitivity,  industry and governments have not reacted to curb emissions. 

5) Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) measurements for cellphones use an arbitrary gap between the phone and the head.

Explanation: “Modeling SAR values with precision at small distances from the head (in the near field) and in proximity to complex layers of biological tissues is difficult and carries an uncertainty of at least 25%. Most notably, SAR decreases by at least 12.5%/mm for very short distances as a cellphone is moved away.”

6) SAR doses were averaged at volumetric or mass scales irrelevant to health.

Explanation: The current models used to determine SAR for humans assume that “tissue is uniform in structure and in its sensitivity to RFR, while in fact it is heterogeneous and anisotropic [that is, having different properties in different directions] at the cellular, organelle, molecular, and particle levels.” A safety standard resting on this model cannot be deemed reliable.

7) Cell Phone SAR simulations did not represent realistic situations.

Explanation: Current models estimate exposure based on the phone and head. A realistic model would include the hand holding the phone. When this is done, “a substantial proportion of the radiated power dissipates into the body, with a modest remainder actually available for wireless communication.”

Read more about the need to strengthen safety limits. 

The post Cell Phone Radiation Reduction Solutions To Protect Health appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.