International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Microwave News Features ICBE-EMF Letter on Flawed WHO Cell Phone Cancer Reviews

icbeAdmin — Thu, 16 Jan 2025 21:49:30 +0000

Microwave News has featured ICBE-EMF’s published letter on the flawed WHO cell phone human cancer reviews

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.

WHO Research on Cell Phone and Wireless Health Risks

icbeAdmin — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:39:32 +0000

The World Health Organization Funded Systematic Reviews on Wireless Risk

ICBE-EMFs Review Finds Serious Scientific Flaws

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is closely monitoring, thoroughly reviewing and publishing expert critiques on a series of World Health Organization (WHO) funded research reviews on the health risks of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation. RF is a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by wireless devices and telecommunications infrastructure including cell phones, Wi-Fi, wireless devices, cell towers and building mounted cell antennas for telecommunications and other wireless networks.

Background on the WHO Funded Reviews

The WHO EMF project is coordinating an international project to systematically review the evidence on the health risks of wireless radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and adverse health effects in order to use them as the basis for updating its 1993 Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on RF-EMF. A monograph is a report which overviews the scientific evidence on biological effects, identifies gaps in knowledge to direct future research and provides information for health authorities and regulatory agencies regarding public health.

The project is the second attempt by the WHO to update its 1993 RF risk evaluation. An earlier attempt was abandoned in 2014 over concerns about transparency, quality and conflicts of interest. The WHO restarted the project in 2019 by commissioning systematic reviews (SRs) on RF-EMF exposure for ten adverse biological and health outcomes in laboratory animals, cell cultures, and human populations prioritized in a survey of RF experts.

The WHO systematic reviews (SR) evaluate ten health related topics.

Some topics are reviewed in two separate papers as noted.

SR1: Effect of RF exposure to cancer in cancer human observational studies.

Part 1: Most researched outcomes. Status: Completed (Karipidis et al. 2024)
Part 2: Less researched outcomes: Status: Completed (Karipidis et al. 2025)
Published protocol (Lagorio et al. 2021)

SR2: Effect of RF exposure to cancer human in animal studies

Status: In process
Published protocol (Mevissen et al. 2022)

SR3: Effect of RF exposure on adverse reproductive outcomes in human observational studies

Male fertility. Status: Completed, (Kenny et al. 2024)
Female reproductive. Status: Completed (Johnson et al. 2024)
Published protocol (Ryan et al. 2022 )

SR 4: Effect of RF exposure to adverse reproductive outcomes in animal and in vitro studies

Male fertility: experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro, (Cordelli et al., 2024)
Pregnancy and birth outcomes: experimental studies on non-human mammals: Status completed (Cordelli et al. 2023)
Published protocol (Pacchierotti et al. 2021)

SR5: Effect of exposure to RF on cognitive impairment (human observational studies)

Status: Completed (Benke et al., 2024)
Published protocol (Benke et al. 2022)

SR6: Effect of exposure to RF on cognitive impairment (human experimental studies)

Status: Completed (Pophof et al. 2024)
Published protocol (Pophof et al. 2021)

SR7: Effect of exposure to RF on symptoms (human observational studies)

Status: Completed (Roosli et al., 2024)
Published protocol (Röösli et al. 2021

SR8: Effect of exposure to RF on symptoms (human experimental studies)

Status: Completed (Bosch-Capblanch et al, 2024)
Published protocol Bosch-Capblanch, et al 2022

SR9: Effect of exposure to RF on biomarkers of oxidative stress

Status: Completed Meyer et al., 2014
Published protocol Henschenmacher et al 2022

SR10: Effect of exposure to heat from any source and pain, burns, cataract and heat-related illness.

Status: Unknown
Protocol: Unknown

Environmental International has published the review protocols and completed reviews in a special issue of the journal entitled ”WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: systematic reviews.” When all the reviews are completed they will be then used to inform an updated Environmental Health Criteria monograph.

Watch Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley and ICBE-EMF Commissioner present on the WHO reviews in the video below.

ICBE-EMF is evaluating the WHO reviews and pushing for scientific integrity.

The WHO systematic reviews published so far have generally concluded that there is a lack of evidence indicating a health risk from wireless radiation despite numerous studies associating wireless exposure with a broad range of adverse effects including increased cancer, DNA damage and induction of reactive oxygen species, as well as reproductive (sperm damage), endocrine and neurological effects.

The ICBE-EMF has identified numerous methodological flaws in the reviews and is publishing its critiques of selected SR papers in scientific journals.

Published Critique of the WHO Funded Review on Cell Phone and Wireless Radiofrequency and Cancer

The ICBE-EMF published a detailed scientific critique of the Karipidis et al. 2024 WHO funded review of radiofrequency and brain cancer risk documenting numerous methodological issues and limitations. The Letter to the Editor published in the journal Environment International stating:

“The review failed to follow widely used scientific guidance for systematic reviews. Having thoroughly reviewed the methodological issues and limitations together, conclusions of “no risk” for cancer from cell phone use is a misrepresentation of the data and is misleading. There is credible scientific evidence from case-control studies of a positive association between cell phone radiation and brain cancer risk.”

Notably, the authors of the WHO review published a letter attempting to refute the flaws ICBE-EMF identified. However, the ICBE-EMF again responded documenting how their rebuttal letter inadequately addressed the issues and included numerous incorrect and misleading statements. The WHO-funded review remains fatally flawed and cannot be used as proof of safety.

ICBE-EMF Published Critique of the WHO Funded Review on Tinnitus, Migraine, Headaches and Non- specific Symptoms

The ICBE-EMF published “A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms” in the journal Environment International, critically evaluating the WHO review, Roosli et al. 2024, employing criteria developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. ICBE-EMF found the conclusions to be unreliable and called for a retraction of the paper.

“We conclude that the body of evidence reviewed for this paper is not adequate to either support or refute the safety of current exposure limits – largely due to the very small number and low methodological quality of the relevant primary studies to date, and the fundamental inappropriateness of meta-analysis for the handful of very heterogeneous primary studies identified for each of the analyzed exposure/outcome combinations.”

“Based upon our review, we call for a retraction of SR7 and an impartial investigation by unconflicted experts of the currently available evidence and future research priorities.”

The WHO systematic reviews will have far reaching implications.

The ICBE-EMF is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and believes the WHO reviews should be properly conducted. These reviews will significantly impact public perception and have major repercussions on government policy, and research efforts worldwide.

Worldwide public health policy: All of the reviews will be integrated into the final risk assessment report called the Environmental Health Criteria monograph, which the WHO states is intended to assist authorities in making risk and risk management decisions. Confident conclusions of “no risk” will likely result in a lack of government action to mitigate rising levels, despite the increasing evidence indicating harm. Without regulatory safeguards in place, new technologies will continue to be greenlighted with cellular antennas mounted close to homes and ecologically sensitive areas.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): The reviews may impact the IARC’s decision to re–evaluate EMF-RF. The IARC advisory group made recommendations in 2019 and again in 2024, to evaluate the up to date evidence on carcinogenicity as a “high priority” largely, in part, due to the recent animal research (Falconi 2018; NTP 2018) which found clear evidence of cancer. However, the WHO “no risk” reviews conclusions may be used to downplay the “high priority” need for a new IARC review, or even result in calls to downgrade the current classification of EMF-RF as a Group 2 Possible Human Carcinogen, even though the IARC evaluation process is different from the WHO reviews.
Consumer behavior: The majority of the public will only take measures to reduce their exposure when an official authority makes a clear recommendation. Simple steps like using a speakerphone, keeping the phone out of one’s pants pocket and preferring ethernet connections can significantly reduce a person’s exposure.
Industry Design: The ICBE-EMF has published an engineering paper that recommends low cost ways cell phone manufacturers can redesign phones to minimize RF exposures. Solutions for safer technologies exist today, but without government and public pressure, corporations will likely not finance such efforts.

The ICBE-EMF believes a diverse group of scientists should be conducting the WHO reviews.

The authors selected to conduct the WHO reviews lack balanced viewpoints. In 2019, the WHO EMF Program put out an official “Call for expressions of interest” inviting scientific teams to apply to undertake the systematic reviews on the identified health topics. However, the WHO did not choose any of more than 244 EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, many of whom had applied to the WHO to serve on the research teams. However, all the selected research teams included ICNIRP scientists (See Microwave News 2023).

An unknown WHO “selection committee” ranked scientists and decided who would perform the systematic reviews. Scientists sent a letter to WHO leadership asking how the teams were selected, but received no response from the WHO.

Dr. James C. Lin, former ICNIRP Commissioner critiqued the WHO reviews.

One of the world’s most renowned scientists who has studied the health effects of wireless radiation, Dr. James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago and a former ICNIRP Commissioner, criticized the World Health Organization’s systematic research reviews, mentioning several ICBE-EMF members in an IEEE article stating:

“The criticisms and challenges encountered by the published WHO-EMF systematic reviews are brutal, including calls for retraction. Rigorous examinations of the reviews reveal major concerns. In addition to the scientific quality, they appear to have a strong conviction of nothing but heat to worry about with RF radiation. The unsubtle message that cellular mobile phones do not pose a cancer risk is clear. The reviews exhibit a lack of serious concerns for conflicts of interest and display unequivocal support for the recently promulgated ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines for human safety.”

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

IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert

December 16, 2024

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

ICBE-EMF is a multidisciplinary, international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including RF radiation from wireless devices and infrastructure including cell phones, Wi-Fi devices and cell towers.

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment.

icbe-emf.org

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

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

icbeAdmin — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:39:08 +0000

Timeline

WHO Initiatives on Wireless Health Effects

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project’s last completed research review on wireless radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field (EMF) is dated 1993. The Project has sought to revise the monograph for over a decade. Its first attempt in 2013 was abandoned over transparency issues. In 2019, the WHO EMF Project relaunched the effort and started by choosing scientists to conduct several systematic reviews on RF-EMF. However, yet again, the selection process was criticized as it lacked transparency. Despite the accumulated scientific evidence indicating serious health risks, the systematic reviews that are being published now by the EMF Project generally conclude that there are no health risks. ICBE-EMF scientists are reviewing them.

The WHO EMF Project reviews will be used as the evidentiary basis for a new monograph on radiofrequency radiation and will reinforce the WHO’s EMF Project’s previously held erroneous position that there is no evidence indicating a health risk. This position is consistent with that of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an affiliate organization to the EMF Project. Further, it may be used to justify changing ICNIRPs current RF exposure limits which have been challenged by independent EMF scientists as adequately protective against human health risks and failing to consider known biological effects, including from long term exposure.

Expert Criticism of the WHO Review

One of the world’s most renowned scientists on the health effects of wireless radiation, Dr. James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who was formerly a Commissioner with the International Commission for Non ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), criticized the WHO EMF Projects systematic reviews in an IEEE article which featured several ICBE-EMF members stating:

Click HERE to review recent critiques published by ICBE-EMF’s challenging some of these WHO Systematic Reviews.

The WHO EMF Project is separate from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer

The WHO has two very different and separate organizations that address non-ionizing EMFs, the WHO EMF Project and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Below are timelines of each organization regarding evaluations of wireless and non-ionizing EMF radiation.

The WHO EMF Project

The WHO Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Project is mandated “to investigate detrimental health effects from exposure of people to non-ionizing radiation.” Among its key goals, the EMF Project is charged with “assessing the scientific literature and incorporating the research findings into WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria monographs where formal health risk assessments will be made on exposure to EMF”. Once published, this monograph would serve as an international reference guide for developing EMF-RF exposure standards. The EMF Project also posts facts sheets online to inform the public, all of which conclude there are no health riss The EMF Project was established with financing from the telecommunications industry and has been long criticized for a lack of transparency and deep ties with ICNIRP. It is located under WHO’s Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health (EHC) in the Healthier Populations (UHC) cluster.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)convenes working groups of expert scientists, vetted for conflicts of interest, to evaluate the scientific evidence on agents and substances that can cause cancer by analyzing human, animal and mechanistic studies in a transparent rigorous process. IARC has published two EMF monographs detailing the science base for their evaluation of both Extremely Low Electromagnetic Fields (2002) and Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (2013) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Timeline: WHO EMF Project on Wireless RF EMF Health Effects

1993: WHO issues monograph on adverse effects concludes research is inadequate

In 1993, the WHO released a monograph on the adverse effects to human health of electromagnetic field 300 HZ to 300 GHZ which reported incomplete and minimal data on the effects of pulsed RF fields (used in wireless technology today) under long term low level exposure conditions. The monograph notably concluded there were numerous data gaps in regards to humans and cancer that signifies that “the available scientific evidence is an entirely inadequate basis for recommendations of health protection guidelines.”

2013- 2014: WHO International EMF Project drafts partial assessment on RF health effects and then drops effort.

The WHO EMF Project initiated a formal risk assessment of the research offering a partial draft for public consultation to be finalized in 2016. According to the EMF Project, the draft document, which received about 700 comments, was ultimately abandoned in 2014 over criticisms about lack of transparency, quality, and conflicts of interest. (Hardell 2017).

As an example, the WHO EMF Project released a request for public consultation in 2014,that had been written by several ICNIRP experts which omitted key sections on the final conclusions regarding health effects. The WHO consultation stated, “Note that the chapters 1, 13 and 14 which will provide a summary, health risk assessment and protective measures are not available for this consultation. The drawing of conclusions from the literature and the drafting of these chapters is the remit of a formal Task Group that will be convened by WHO at a later stage in the process.” How can the public comment on conclusions analysing the data when the report is incomplete?

2018: The WHO EMF Project relaunches effort with new survey

The WHO EMF Project relaunched the effort by calling for scientific experts to respond to an online survey entitled “Rating Potential Adverse Health Outcomes of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields” to help focus the research on specific health related endpoints. Over 300 RF experts were invited to participate in the survey and 167 responses were received.

2019: The WHO EMF Program invited scientists to apply to conduct systematic reviews with an unknown selection process.

The WHO EMF Program then put out an official “Call for expressions of interest” inviting scientists to apply to participate in systematic reviews on the identified health topics. An unknown WHO “selection committee” was formed to rank the teams and choose the scientists to perform the systematic reviews. Several scientists with expertise in EMF and health sent a letter to WHO EMF Project leadership asking how the selection committee and the teams were selected but they never got a response.

None of the EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal and who had applied to the WHO to serve on the research teams were chosen. However, all the selected research teams included ICNIRP scientists (See Microwave News 2023).

2021: WHO EMF Project publishes health outcome priorities for research

The WHO published the results of its survey on research priorities for RF-EMF exposure and how it was commissioning research reviews on the topic areas in the paper “Prioritizing health outcomes when assessing the effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A survey among experts” in Environment International.

List of published WHO funded reviews

The WHO systematic reviews (SR) evaluate ten health related topics.

Some topics are reviewed in two separate papers as noted.

SR1: Effect of RF exposure to cancer in cancer human observational studies.

Part 1: Most researched outcomes. Status: Completed (Karipidis et al. 2024)
Part 2: Less researched outcomes: Status: Completed (Karipidis et al. 2025)
Published protocol (Lagorio et al. 2021)

SR2: Effect of RF exposure to cancer human in animal studies

Status: In process
Published protocol (Mevissen et al. 2022)

SR3: Effect of RF exposure on adverse reproductive outcomes in human observational studies

Male fertility. Status: Completed, (Kenny et al. 2024)
Female reproductive. Status: Completed (Johnson et al. 2024)
Published protocol (Ryan et al. 2022 )

SR 4: Effect of RF exposure to adverse reproductive outcomes in animal and in vitro studies

Male fertility: experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro, (Cordelli et al., 2024)
Pregnancy and birth outcomes: experimental studies on non-human mammals: Status completed (Cordelli et al. 2023)
Published protocol (Pacchierotti et al. 2021)

SR5: Effect of exposure to RF on cognitive impairment (human observational studies)

Status: Completed (Benke et al., 2024)
Published protocol (Benke et al. 2022)

SR6: Effect of exposure to RF on cognitive impairment (human experimental studies)

Status: Completed (Pophof et al. 2024)
Published protocol (Pophof et al. 2021)

SR7: Effect of exposure to RF on symptoms (human observational studies)

Status: Completed (Roosli et al., 2024)
Published protocol (Röösli et al. 2021

SR8: Effect of exposure to RF on symptoms (human experimental studies)

Status: Completed (Bosch-Capblanch et al, 2024)
Published protocol Bosch-Capblanch, et al 2022

SR9: Effect of exposure to RF on biomarkers of oxidative stress

Status: Completed Meyer et al., 2014
Published protocol Henschenmacher et al 2022

SR10: Effect of exposure to heat from any source and pain, burns, cataract and heat-related illness.

Status: Unknown
Protocol: Unknown

2021 to Today: Publication of WHO EMF Project backed research protocols and completed reviews

The journal Environmental International began publishing the protocols for the EMF Project reviews as well as the final completed reviews in a special issue of the journal ”WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: systematic reviews.”

Microwave News, which has been reporting on the issue since 1981, also has been following the WHO SR process and has published several articles on the controversy regarding the WHO EMF reviews.

September 11, 2024: “Old Wine in New Bottles” on how the Karipidis et al 2024 cancer review included the Danish cohort study “deemed unreliable” and how several of the SR authors had previously published reviews with essentially the same no-risk message.
August 23, 2024: Forth Review Questioned on Bevington’s letter on the Bosch-Capblanch et al. review.
August 21, 2024: Microwave News “Another WHO RF Review Challenged: More than 99% of Studies on Oxidative Stress Discarded”
November 4, 2019: Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance details the launch of the reviews and issues related to the selection process, the history of the WHO EMF Project and longstanding ties to ICNIRP.

Timeline: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

2002: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluates extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B)

The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated extremely low frequency magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) largely based on pooled analyses of epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of a two-fold increase in childhood leukaemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic field above 3 to 4 milligauss magnetic field. The studies are detailed in the

2002 monograph “Non-ionizing radiation, part 1: Static and extremely low-frequency (elf) electric and magnetic fields.”

2011: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates wireless RF radiofrequency as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B)

The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF-EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), largely based on epidemiological studies demonstrating an increased risk for tumors associated with wireless phone use (See the 2011 press release and research monograph issued in 2013.

2019: WHO IARC advisory group recommends Radiofrequency Radiation be re-evaluated

In 2019, the WHO/IARC advisory committee recommended wireless RF radiation be re-evaluated by 2024 as a “high priority.” The scientific basis for the decision was documented in the Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024 which highlights how new epidemiological and experimental animal studies should be evaluated.

2024: WHO IARC advisory group recommends Radiofrequency Radiation be re-evaluated

In 2024, the WHO/IARC advisory committee again recommended wireless RF radiation be re-evaluated by 2024 as a “high priority” as documented in the Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029. A date has not been set.

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.

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

icbeAdmin — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:00:21 +0000

New Publication: WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study is “Seriously Flawed”

Scientists conclude the review does not assure wireless safety, and should not be used to set public health policy

Media Contact:
Joel Moskowitz PhD
Email: jmm@berkeley.edu

A Letter to the Editor published in the journal Environment International by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) concludes that a recently published World Health Organization (WHO) systematic review and meta-analysis on cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and cancer risk by Karipidis et al. (2024) is scientifically flawed and does not provide a reliable assessment of the evidence on brain cancer risk associated with the use of cell phones and other wireless technologies. The ICBE-EMF are experts in researching the health effects of RFR from wireless devices and infrastructure including cell phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers.

ICBE-EMF’s scientific leadership points to numerous significant flaws in the WHO review that combine to understate the cancer risk from wireless exposure and undermine the validity of the study’s conclusions, raising serious concerns about its impact on public health policy.

“Cell phone and wireless safety is not assured. Conclusions of no cell phone cancer risk’ in the Karipidis et al. paper is a misleading representation of the science because credible scientific evidence from case-control studies suggests increased cancer risk from cell phone radiation,” stated ICBE-EMF. Seven meta-analyses published since 2016 have reported significant links between cumulative and long-term cellphone use and brain tumor risk including a 2024 review which highlighted the same methodological flaws that ICBE-EMF identified.

“The WHO review failed to follow widely-used scientific guidance for meta-analysis reviews,” stated John Frank MD, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, and ICBE-EMF member.

“It is dishonest to assure the public that cell phones and wireless radiation are safe based upon such a flawed review.” said Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, also an ICBE-EMF member.

The ICBE-EMF states the key weaknesses of the Karipidis et al. (2024) review include:

The authors’ excessive reliance on simplistic categories such as “ever” versus “never” or “time since start of use,” which do not reflect a person’s actual exposure.
The conclusion relied largely on cohort studies that were subject to serious exposure misclassification and considered uninformative regarding cancer risks during the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluation.
Studies cited to support the conclusion do not capture unique exposure characteristics of groups with increased brain cancer risk, such as higher incidence in the temporal lobe and on the side of the head where the person held the cell phone.
Sweeping conclusions of no cell phone cancer risk are not scientifically justified as the reviewed studies did not follow people for sufficient duration to diagnose late developing cancers. The IARC states “experience with human cancer indicates that the period from first exposure to the development of clinical cancer is sometimes longer than 20 years; therefore latent periods substantially shorter than 30 years cannot provide evidence for lack of carcinogenicity.” Furthermore, combined analysis for tumor types, acoustic neuroma and glioma, strongly suggests increasing risk after moderate to long latencies.
It is not scientifically acceptable to draw conclusions from analyses which combine disparate study designs.

The ICBE-EMF also released a scientific response to the Karipidis rebuttal to these criticisms stating, “the response failed to adequately respond to the issues and included numerous incorrect and misleading statements.” The full ICBE-EMF response to the Karipidis et al. rebuttal to ICBE-EMF’s critique is posted here.

ICBE-EMF continues to strongly recommend reducing public exposure to RFR from cell phones, cellular antennas and other wireless sources such as Wi-Fi. These recommendations are especially important during pregnancy and childhood, and for individuals who are medically vulnerable or electromagnetically sensitive.

The ICBE- EMF website has more information on all the the WHO’s research reviews here.

Watch ICBE-EMF expert John Frank M.D. speak about the WHO cell phone cancer risk review in the video below.

Link to this Press Release Online.

ICBE-EMF expert Joel Moskowitz Ph.D. also detailed problems with the WHO funded review in a presentation he gave on September 24, 2024 in a Webinar for the Collaborative of Health and the Environment entitled Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies.

Media Resources

Fact Sheet on Key Weaknesses of the WHO Funded Review on Cell Phones And Wireless (PDF)

ICBE-EMF Overview of WHO Funded Reviews on Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Health Risks

ICBE-EMF response to the Karipidis et al. rebuttal is posted here.

Dr. Moskowitz shared details in a Podcast

Dr. Joel Moskowitz did a radio interview about wireless radiation health effects and the WHO reviews on Green Street Radio that was broadcast on WBAI-FM in New York City on November 1, 2024. The podcast can be streamed or downloaded at https://bit.ly/Wireless_radiation-jmm-241101.

About the ICBE-EMF

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including RFR. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment.

ICBE-EMF.org

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.

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

icbeAdmin — Tue, 14 Jan 2025 21:26:51 +0000

Scientific rebuttal to the misleading responses from Karipidis et al. on the ICBE-EMF critique of their systematic review on exposure to RF-EMF and human cancer

January 15, 2025

On December 30, 2024, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) published a critique (Frank et al., 2024a) of the systematic review (SR) on wireless radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and human cancer that was commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Karipidis et al. (2024a).

In response, the authors of the SR then published a letter attempting to refute the flaws ICBE-EMF identified (Karipidis et al. 2024b); however, their rebuttal falls short. Karipidis et al. failed to adequately address the issues we raised, and their response included numerous incorrect and misleading statements. The WHO-funded cell phone human cancer review remains fatally flawed and cannot be used as proof of safety.

Here the ICBE-EMF presents a scientific rebuttal to Karipidis et al. (2024b).

Incorrect and misleading statements made by Karipidis et al. (2024b) in response to the Commission’s critique of their SR on RF-EMF exposure and cancer, include the following:

1) Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim “we were comprehensive and transparent in our systematic review and meta-analytic approach.”

However, their presentations of the data on cumulative call time were based on “dose-response meta-analyses” methodology published by one of the authors of this SR. Yet, the Karipidis et al. (2024a) paper only provides graphs of the predicted dose-response relationships, without showing the model and its parameters, analyses of parameter sensitivity and statistical fit of the model to the data, as well as analyses of alternative dose-response approaches. The latter point is important since numerous meta-analyses have reported statistically significant increases in brain tumor risk associated with exposure to RF-EMF emissions from mobile phones. There was no mention of whether latency, a critical aspect in cancer assessments, was factored into their analyses. In other words, Karipidis et al. (2024a) expect the reader to accept their graphical presentation of the data without providing any supportive analyses on the certainty of the model outcome. Thus, the paper was not transparent in reporting its dose-response meta-analyses methodology.

2) Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim “there are no links between any of the authors in our systematic review and the telecommunications industry,” and that several of the letter’s (Frank et al., 2024a) co-authors have undeclared conflicts of interest.”

Widespread linkages between the authorship team of Karipidis et al. (2024a) with the telecommunications industry have been documented (Hardell and Carlberg, 2020; Frank, 2021; Frank et al., 2024b). For example, Martin Röösli, a co-author of this SR and two other SRs in this series, declares in his competing interest statement that his “research is entirely funded by public entities or not for profit foundations.” However this statement omits the fact that a key “not for profit” entity that Roosli has received extensive research funding from is Swiss Research Foundation for Electricity and Mobile Communications (FSM) which is sponsored by several wireless companies including Swisscom, Swissgrid, Sunrise, Cellnex and Ericsson.

In addition, three authors of Karipidis et al. (2024a), Karipidis, Röösli, and Baaken are members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is a body long demonstrated to have under-reported potential conflicts of interest (Nyberg et al., 2023; Lin, 2025). In contrast, none of the authors of our critique have had relationships with the telecommunications industry.

3) Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim “authors of the Danish cohort study have validated the subscriber status of 1355 cohort members,” with “61% of subscribers were indeed mobile phone users, and 16% of the nonsubscribers were actually regular mobile phone users before 1996.”

However, the cited paper (Schüz and Johansen, 2007) was not a “validation” of subscriber status in the Danish cohort which included the entire Danish population and more than 358,400 subscribers. Moreover, the response by Karipidis does not address the fact that this information was available in 2011 when the IARC working group downplayed the utility of the Danish cohort and its updated studies (Frei et al., 2011; Schüz et al., 2006a,b) because they relied on subscriptions to mobile phone providers as a surrogate of mobile-phone use: the study “lacked information on level of mobile-phone use and there were several potential sources of misclassification of exposure” (IARC, 2013). In their response letter, Karipidis et al. (2024b) acknowledge that “ever” versus “never” and “time since start of use” are “simple exposure proxies.” While those proxies were the major factors in their SR meta-analysis, they do not account for cumulative exposure, and therefore are not reliable measures of brain cancer risk.

4) Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim “the Million Women Study [Schüz et al., 2022] had an attrition rate of 8.9%,” which “is acceptable handling of subject attrition including very little (≤ 20%) missing outcome data.”

However, the rate of 8.9% was based on attrition in the year 2001, at the end of the recruitment period (1996-2001). At the 14-year follow-up in 2011, only 57% (429,407 ÷ 747,561) of the women with no prior brain cancer who completed the questionnaire in 2001 continued to participate in the study. The 43% attrition rate (1-57%) is not “very little.

5) Karipidis et al. (2024b) cite studies that claim case-control studies are “particularly sensitive to recall bias and thus overestimation of the risk.”

However, Karipidis neglected to cite Momoli et al. (2017) which re-analyzed the Canadian data from the Interphone study and showed that there was no effect on the risk of glioma after adjustments were made for selection and recall biases. Odds ratios (OR) for glioma were increased significantly and to a similar extent when comparing the highest quartile of use to those who were not regular users regardless of whether adjustments for biases were made.

6) Karipidis et al. (2024a) omitted consideration of the results on laterality of mobile phone use in relation to tumor localization (ipsilateral use) claiming that “there was an increased risk with ipsilateral use which was compensated by a decreased risk with contralateral use.”

This statement is contradicted by results on glioma both by Hardell and Carlberg (2015) and Interphone (2010) that showed increased risk also for contralateral exposure, although lower than for ipsilateral exposure that would be expected in carcinogenesis.

7) Karipidis et al. (2024b) acknowledge “the limitations of time-trend simulation studies, including the inability to account for patterns in mobile phone use on the individual level,” while claiming “overall brain cancer incidence has remained largely unchanged.”

As we noted in our letter to the editor (Frank et al., 2024a), the findings from the case-control studies of increased cancer risks in the areas of the brain (temporal lobe) with the highest absorption of RF radiation emitted from a mobile phone held next to the head of the user have not been addressed in cancer time-trend analyses. Hence, those analyses do not validate the rating of certainty of brain cancer evidence by Karipidis et al. (2024a). In their letter, Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim that increases in glioblastoma multiforme when accompanied by decreases in other brain cancers is due to improvements in diagnostic techniques, while ignoring the possibility that such changes might have been due to tumor promotion by RF-EMF. Further, the statement by Karipidis et al. (2024a) on overall brain cancer incidence was obtained by exclusion of studies showing increasing incidence with time. Philips et al. (2018) reported “a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR (age–standardized incidence rates) rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages.” In addition, Swedish data showing increasing incidence of brain tumors with time (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017), and the Danish Cancer registry data which shows that tumors in the brain and central nervous system have increased between 2004 and 2023 (Nye kræfttilfælde i Danmark 2023) were also not mentioned by Karipidis et al. (2024a).

8) Karipidis et al. (2024b) state that their “systematic review defines long latency as 10 years or more,” while noting that “ionizing radiation has been shown to induce brain cancer by causing DNA damage with a latency period of about 5 or more years” and that “assuming a similar latency for non-ionizing radiation as observed for ionizing radiation, one would expect that any relevant risk should already have started to emerge by now.”

However, the preamble to the IARC monographs states “experience with human cancer indicates that the period from first exposure to the development of clinical cancer is sometimes longer than 20 years; therefore, latent periods substantially shorter than 30 years cannot provide evidence for lack of carcinogenicity.” Furthermore, even for ionizing radiation, the latency period for a significant increase in brain cancer cases among atomic bomb survivors was around 10 or more years; yet, increased risks of solid tumors have been detected more than 50 years after the bombings. There is no justification for the assumption that the latency for RF-EMF carcinogenicity is the same as that of ionizing radiation.

Lastly, in their responding letter, Karipidis et al. (2024b) claim “we have highlighted that there are limitations to the included studies and data which has some impact on the ability to draw definitive conclusions; hence, our rating of moderate certainty of evidence that near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from mobile phone used likely does not increase the risk of glioma, …” and in the SR, Karipidis et al. (2024a) noted “there was no strong indication against the hypothesis of no summary effect of CCT [cumulative call time] on glioma risk.”

In contrast to the above statements, Karipidis has claimed in the media that “exposure to radio waves from mobile phones or wireless technologies is not associated with an increased risk of brain cancer,” and that “radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health.” These latter statements appear to intentionally mislead the public about potential health risks from exposure to RF-EMF.

In assessing health effects of environmental agents, public health agencies address the certainty in the evidence of an increase in risk, not in rating the certainty of evidence of no increase in risk. For example, because of limitations and variations in human exposures to RF-EMF due to factors such as intensity of phone emissions, differences in how people use and hold their phones, differences in frequency and modulation patterns of those emissions, as well as interindividual differences in human responses to these exposures, it is not possible to make any definitive conclusion on the lack of cancer risk based on available data. The concordant results from the animal carcinogenicity studies on RF-EMF and the increased risk of brain gliomas and Schwann cell tumors from the case-control studies point to a potential cancer risk that was ignored by Karipidis et al. (2024a) in their overall conclusions.

In sum, the response by Karipidis et al. (2024b) to our critique (Frank et al. 2024a) of their systematic review of the research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and human cancer studies fails to support their seriously flawed review (Karipidis et al., 2024a). Hence, we believe that this review should be retracted. Moreover, this review cannot be used as proof of cell phone safety.

Timeline

September 2024: Environment International publishes the WHO funded review “The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes” by Karipidis et al.

December 30, 2024: Environment International publishes the ICBE-EMF critique of the WHO review “The Systematic Review on RF-EMF Exposure and Cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has Serious Flaws that Undermine the Validity of the Study’s Conclusions.”

December 30, 2024: Karipidis et al. then publishes their response to the ICBE-EMF critique “Response to letter from members of the ICBE-EMF.”

January 15, 2025: The ICBE-EMF releases this rebuttal Scientific Rebuttal To The Misleading Responses From Karipidis et al. On The ICBE-EMF Critique Of Their Systematic Review On Exposure To RF-EMF And Human Cancer to the Karipidis et al. 2024 response.

References

Frank JW. (2021). Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health. Jan 19: jech-2019-213595.

Frank JW, Moskowitz JM, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Philips A, Héroux P, Kelley E. (2024a). The systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and cancer by Karipidis et al. (2024) has serious flaws that undermine the validity of the study’s conclusions. Environ Int. Dec 19:109200. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.109200

Frank JW, Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM. (2024b). A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms. Rev. Environ. Health. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069

Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, Olsen JH, Steding-Jessen M, Schüz J. 2011. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.

Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001.

Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2017). Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185461.

Hardell L, Carlberg M. (2020). Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncol Lett. Oct;20(4):15. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum, vol 102. Lyon: IARC Press; 2013.

INTERPHONE Study Group. (2010). Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 39:675-694. doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. (2024a). The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Sep:191:108983.. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983.

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Mate R, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. (2024b) Response to letter from members of the ICBE-EMF. Environ Int. 2024 Dec 18:109201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.109201

Lin JC. (2025). World Health Organization’s EMF project’s systemic reviews on the association between RF exposure and health effects encounter challenges. IEEE Microwave Magazine 26:13-15. doi: 10.1109/MMM.2024.3476748.

Momoli F, Siemiatycki J, McBride ML, Parent MÉ, Richardson L, Bedard D, Platt R, Vrijheid M, Cardis E, Krewski D. (2017). Probabilistic multiple-bias modeling applied to the Canadian data from the Interphone study of mobile phone use and risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, and parotid gland tumors. Am J Epidemiol. 186:885-893. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx157

Nyberg R, McCredden J, Hardell L. (2023). The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review). Rev Environ Health. 39(4):707-719. doi:10.1515/reveh-2023-0046

Philips A, Henshaw DL, Lamburn G, O’Carroll MJ. (2018). Brain tumours: Rise in glioblastoma multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. J Environ Public Health. doi: 10.1155/2018/7910754.

Schüz J, Böhler E, Berg G, Schlehofer B, Hettinger I, Schlaefer K, Wahrendorf J, Kunna-Grass K, Blettner M. (2006a). Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Am J Epidemiol. 163(6):512-520. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj068

Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C. (2006b). Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 98:1707-1713. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj464

Schüz J, Johansen C. 2007. A comparison of self-reported cellular telephone use with subscriber data: agreement between the two methods and implications for risk estimation. Bioelectromagnetics. 28(2):130-6. doi: 10.1002/bem.20297

Schüz J, Pirie K, Reeves GK, Floud S, Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators. (2022). Cellular telephone use and the risk of brain tumors: Update of the UK million women study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 114(5):704-711. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac042

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment.

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.

Cell Phone Radiation Reduction Solutions To Protect Health

icbeAdmin — Wed, 25 Dec 2024 16:43:13 +0000

Engineering Solutions To Mitigate Cell Phone Radiation Exposure

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.”

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

IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert

icbeAdmin — Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:13:55 +0000

New IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert

IEEE article by Dr. James C. Lin on the WHO EMF Project research reviews on wireless health risks

One of the world’s most renowned scientists who has studied the health effects of wireless radiation for decades, Dr. James C. Lin, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago and a former International Commission for Non ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Commissioner, criticized the World Health Organization’s systematic research reviews on cell phone and wireless radiation health effects in an IEEE Microwave Magazine article entitled “World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges”. ” The critical appraisal of WHO’s review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus migraine/headache and non-specific symptoms by the ICBE-EMF as well as Dr. Henry Lai’s abstract compilation was featured in Lin’s IEEE article.

“The question is, “Is this review really the definitive word on the long-standing issue of whether cell phone radiations pose a cancer risk?” My answer is, far from it!”

Lin on how the criticized WHO reviews serve to justify ICNIRP’s heat based limits

Lin on published criticisms of the WHO-EMF systematic review on wireless and reproductive health

“While the WHO-EMF systematic review presents itself as thorough, scientific, and relevant to human health, numerous issues were identified, suggesting the WHO-EMF review was severely flawed. The found flaws skewed the results in support of the review’s conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence for effects other than RF-induced tissue heating. It showed that the underlying data, when relevant studies are cited correctly, support the opposite conclusion: “There are clear indications of detrimental nonthermal effects” from RF exposure.”

Lin on published criticisms of the WHO-EMF systematic review on wireless, tinnitus migraine/headache and non-specific symptoms

‘An ensuing critical appraisal by three accomplished senior researchers documented major problems with the WHO-EMF-commissioned review and called for its retraction [8]. The meta-analysis for the handful of very heterogeneous primary studies identified for each of the analyzed exposure and outcome combinations appeared fundamentally inappropriate. The number is very small, and the methodological quality of the relevant primary studies is low.”

Lin on how the WHO review on oxidative stress eliminated 11,543 studies when the overwhelming majority of studies demonstrate impacts.

“Some skepticism has been expressed regarding a third WHO-EMF systematic review on RF-induced oxidative stress [9]. The study identified 11,599 studies on oxidative stress in the frequency range 800–2,450 MHz and then eliminated 11,543 of them as not meeting the criteria for inclusion. Of the remaining 56 papers, there were 45 animal studies and 11 in vitro cellular studies. The conclusion was that a majority of the included studies provided high heterogeneity. The oxidative stress effects were inconsistent across the experimental preparations studied. There may or may not be an effect of RF exposure, but the certainty of the evidence is very low.
For many years, Henry Lai, a leading researcher in RF oxidative responses and professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Seattle, has maintained a bibliography of RF-oxidative stress papers. As of mid-August, his list includes 367 studies, published between 1997 and 2024. By his count, 89% showed significant effects. Lai’s assessment of the WHO-EMF review is that it left out a large portion of RF-oxidative effect studies and appears to have only considered oxidative molecular reactions among the possible oxidative effects [10]. As reported, others have opined that “this systematic review methodically excluded most of the relevant research.”

Lin on how the large-scale animal studies of the National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute added critical data that likely would change evaluation to a higher designation regarding carcinogenicity.

“The WHO-IARC, NIH-NTP, and Ramazzini outcomes, under normal circumstances, would likely have provided the justification for raising WHO-IARC’s current possible cancer risk designation to the probable cancer-causing classification, if not higher.”

Lin on how the WHO EMF Project has long standing close ties to ICNIRP and the scientists conducting the WHO reviews lack diversity of views

“From its inception, WHO-EMF had close ties with ICNIRP, a private organization, frequently referred to as the WHO-EMF project’s scientific secretariat [18]. What may not be as apparent for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews is the lack of diversity of views. A large number of ICNIRP commissioners and committee members are listed as authors for the WHO-EMF systematic reviews; some also served as lead authors. These concerns advance issues of reviewer independence and potential for conflicts of interest.”

James C. Lin’s article is available online and a PDF can be downloaded.

Lin JC. World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 26(1): 13-15, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2024.3476748. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10795296

Watch Dr. James Lin present on Wireless Radiation Safety Standards.

The post IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

FCC and ICNIRP Limits

icbeAdmin — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:05:30 +0000

FCC and ICNIRP Human Exposure Limits

Inadequate to Protect Health or Environment

The wireless radiation exposure limits of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are inadequate to protect health. They ignore hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at wireless exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) are scientists with expertise regarding the health effects of cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi , 4G, 5G, wireless networks and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.

ICBE-EMF published a scientific paper documenting the false assumptions that FCC and ICNIRP limits are based on.

The ICBE-EMF published a scientific paper in Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” arguing how the FCC and ICNIRP limits, based on science from the 1980s – before cell phones were ubiquitous – do not adequately protect workers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public from exposure to the non-ionizing radiation from wireless data transmission.(1)

The three take-away messages from this paper are:

Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set by ICNIRP and the FCC are based on invalid assumptions, are not protective of human health, and ignore the impact on wildlife. Consequently, an independent assessment is needed of the effects and risks of radiofrequency radiation which is based on evidence from scientific studies conducted over the past 25 years; the aim of such assessment would be to establish health protective exposure standards for workers and the general population.
The general public should be informed of the health risks of radiofrequency radiation and encouraged to take precautions to minimize exposures and risks, especially for children, pregnant women and people who are electromagnetically hypersensitive.
ICBE-EMF calls for an immediate moratorium on further development of 5G wireless technologies until safety is demonstrated, and not simply assumed.

The paper detailed 14 erroneous assumptions that underpin FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits for RF radiation.

Click to read the 14 erroneous assumptions detailed in the graphic below

A) Effects of RE radiation at exposures below the putative SAR threshold of 4 W/kg.

Assumption 1

There is an exposure threshold for any adverse health effect caused by RF radiation; in the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz it is a whole body exposure that exceeds an SAR of 4 W/kg. Any biological effect of radiation above the threshold exposure is due to tissue heating.

Assumption 2

The RF radiation is incapable of causing DNA damage other than by heating; there is no mechanism for non-thermal DNA damage.

Assumption 3

Two to seven exposures to RF radiation for up to one hour are sufficient to exclude adverse effects of RF radiation for any duration of exposure, including chronic exposure.

Assumption 4

No additional effects would occur from RF radiation with co-exposure to other environmental agents

B) Factors influencing dosimetry

Assumption 5

Health effects are dependent only the SAR value; carrier wave modulations, frequency, or pulsing do not matter except as they influence the SAR.

C) Human brain cancer risk

Assumption 6

The multiple human studies that find associations between exposure to cell phone RF radiation and increases in brain cancer risk are flawed because of biases in the published case-control studies, and because brain cancer rates have remained steady since the use of wireless communication devices became widespread.

D) Individual variations in exposure and sensitivity to RF-EMF

Assumption 7

There are no differences among individuals, including children, in the absorption of RF-EMF and susceptibility to this radiation.

Assumption 8

There are no differences among individuals in their sensitivity to this RF radiation-induced health effects.

E) Applied safety factors for EMF-RF workers and the general population

Assumption 9

A 50-fold safety factor for the whole-body exposure to RF radiation is adequate for protecting the general population from any health risk from RF radiation.

Assumption 10

A 10-fold safety factor for whole body exposure to RF radiation is adequate for protecting workers from any health risk from RF radiation.

Assumption 11

Exposure of any gram of cube-shaped tissue up to 1.6 W/kg, or 10 grams of cube-shaped tissue up to 10 W/kg, (duration not specified) will not increase the risk of that tissue to any toxic or carcinogenic effects in the general population.

Assumption 12

Exposure of any gram of cube-shaped tissue up to 8 W/kg, or 10 grams of cubed-shaped tissue, (duration not specified) will not increase the risk that tissue to any toxic or carcinogenic effects in workers.

F) Environmental exposure to RF radiation

Assumption 13

There is no concern for environmental effects of RF radiation or the effects on wildlife or household pets.

G) 5G (5th generation wireless)

Assumption 14

No health effects data are needed for exposures to 5G: safety is assumed because penetration is limited to the skin (“minimal body penetration”).

The ICBE-EMF position is that numerous questions need answers before safety assurances are put forward that wireless technologies are safe for human health and the environment.

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures are associated with a range of adverse health effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological effects, increased permeability of the blood brain barrier and sperm damage.
Since 2002(2), multiple robust epidemiologic studies of cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors3 which are supported by evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types (glial cells and Schwann cells) from animal studies.(4,5)
Based on very limited research conducted 40 years ago (before most people had cell phones), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the U.S., and the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for many other countries, determined in the 1990s and again in 2020 that there are no adverse health effects from RFR exposure below the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram (W/kg) for frequencies ranging from 100 kHz to 6 GHz. The assumed safe level is based on a behavioral effect observed in acute studies (up to 1 hour) conducted with small numbers of rats and monkeys in the 1980s.(6,7)

“Many studies have demonstrated oxidative effects associated with exposure to low-intensity RFR, and significant adverse effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological disorders, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and sperm damage,” explains Dr. Ronald Melnick, ICBE-EMF Commission chair and a former senior toxicologist with the U.S. National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “These effects need to be addressed in revised and health-protective exposure guidelines. Furthermore, the assumption that 5G millimeter waves are safe because of limited penetration into the body does not dismiss the need for health effects studies.”

The FCC and ICNIRP state that any biological effect observed at exposures above the putative 4 W/kg threshold is due to tissue heating.(8-11) However, a large and growing number of peer- reviewed experimental studies have found adverse biological and health effects at lower doses or for longer durations of exposure, demonstrating that an SAR of 4 W/kg is not a threshold for effects of RFR.(12)

Additionally:

The current RFR exposure limits do not consider potential synergistic effects that reflect modern day exposures to multiple environmental agents.
There is insufficient information on health effects of 5G radiation.
Neurological effects, some of which are acknowledged by ICNIRP and are currently being experienced by persons with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), are health effects that can be mitigated with radiation-free areas for hypersensitive individuals.

ICBE-EMF Paper: Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G

Factsheet: Scientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions of Government Exposure Limits for Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR): Implications for 5G

References

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health (2022) 21:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.
Hardell et al. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2002 Aug;11(4):377-86. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200208000-00010.
Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 2;17(21):8079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079
National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP technical report on the 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, Technical report series no. 595. Research Triangle Park: National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf
Falcioni et al. 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 Aug;165:496-503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037.
De Lorge & Ezell. Observing-responses of rats exposed to 1.28- and 5.62-GHz microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics. 1980;1:183–98.
De Lorge. Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mulatta exposed to radio frequency fields at and above resonant frequencies. Bioelectromagnetics. 1984;5:233–46.
ICNIRP. Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 2020;118:483–524.
ICNIRP. ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 1998;74:494–522.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. https://ncrponline.org/publications/reports/ncrp-report-86/
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz., ANSI/IEEE C95.1–1992. https://emfguide.itu.int/pdfs/c95.1-2005.pdf
ICBE-EMF. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Appendix 1, Table 1. Studies demonstrating increased oxidative DNA damage and other indicators of oxidative stress at SAR < 4 W/kg. Environ Health (2022) 21:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

The post FCC and ICNIRP Limits appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

ICBE-EMF Letter to Indian Government To Maintain Its Stringent Cell Tower Radiation Limits

icbeAdmin — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 15:48:14 +0000

International Scientific Commission Sends Letter to Indian Government To Maintain Its Stringent Cell Tower Radiation Limits

Strong safety limits are needed to protect public health and wildlife

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) sent a letter to the Minister of Communications & Information Technology of India and members of the Indian Parliament with science based recommendations against an industry led proposal to significantly weaken the country’s regulatory limits for cell tower mobile base station radio frequency (RF) radiation.

“We strongly assert this new law would violate the rights of individuals, their health and environmental quality…Urgently needed are protective wireless exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on the industry’s misdirected needs for expansion and on flawed safety assumptions.”

“It is critical that India take action to protect all life forms from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Given the increasing world-wide exposure of populations and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies showing that it is safe for humans at the levels allowed by the current limits, it would not be in the best interest of public health for India to raise those limits at this time.”

The new proposal would reverse changes to India’s regulations set in 2012, when India reduced allowable levels to one-tenth of its previous limits following the recommendations of an Inter-Ministerial Committee Report set up by the India Ministry of Environment and Forests which reviewed the research on birds, bees, plants, humans, and other wildlife and concluded that the “vast majority of published literature indicate deleterious effects of EMFs in various species.”

The ICBE-EMF has long cautioned that the limits of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection are inadequate. The ICBE-EMF 2023 paper published in the journal Environmental Health states, “the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP and FCC are based on invalid assumptions and continue to present harm to public health. Long-term adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) range include nonthermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic sensitivity and microwave syndrome. In addition, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.”

India is one of several countries with RF limits much stronger than ICNIRP and U.S. FCC limits. Countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Russia, China and Israel also have more stringent limits. In contrast, the United States has the most lenient limits for cell tower and wireless radiation with regulations unchanged since 1996.

Read the Letter from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields to India

ICBE-EMF strongly recommends reducing public exposure to RF radiation from cell phones, cellular antennas and other wireless sources such as Wi-Fi. These recommendations are especially important during pregnancy, childhood and for individuals who are medically vulnerable or electromagnetically hypersensitive (EHS).

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment.

icbe-emf.org

The post ICBE-EMF Letter to Indian Government To Maintain Its Stringent Cell Tower Radiation Limits appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

News on Wireless and EMF Science, Health and Safety

icbeAdmin — Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:31:03 +0000

The Latest News on EMF

Microwave News Features ICBE-EMF Letter on Flawed WHO Cell Phone Cancer Reviews

icbeAdmin January 16, 2025

Microwave News has featured ICBE-EMF’s published letter on the flawed WHO cell phone human cancer…

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

icbeAdmin January 15, 2025

New Publication: WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study is “Seriously Flawed” Scientists conclude the review…

IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert

icbeAdmin December 16, 2024

New IEEE Paper: WHO Research Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health Criticized by World Expert …

ICBE-EMF Letter to Indian Government To Maintain Its Stringent Cell Tower Radiation Limits

icbeAdmin December 5, 2024

International Scientific Commission Sends Letter to Indian Government To Maintain Its Stringent Cell Tower Radiation…

ICBE-EMF Comments to ANSES on Radiofrequency and Cancer

icbeAdmin November 26, 2024

ICBE-EMF Comments to ANSES on Radiofrequency and Cancer The International Commission on the Biological Effects…

Joel M. Moskowitz Ph.D. “Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?”

icbeAdmin September 25, 2024

“Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?” The Collaborative for Health…

World Health Organization Cell Phone Cancer Review Captured by ICNIRP?

icbeAdmin September 11, 2024

World Health Organization Cell Phone Cancer Review Captured by ICNIRP? Microwave News, which has reported…

Appeal of the Scientists for Electromagnetic Safety to Italy

icbeAdmin August 7, 2024

Italy has the lowest EMF exposure limits in Europe. EMF experts and citizens successfully opposed…

Ronald L. Melnick PhD Chairperson’s 2023-2024 Annual Report Statement

icbeAdmin August 4, 2024

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Chairman’s 2024 Annual Report Overview Statement…

Scientists release position statement on electromagnetic hypersensitivity

icbeAdmin July 30, 2024

ICE-EMF Position Statement on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic…

Scientists Find Flaws in WHO Review on Cell Phone Radiation, Tinnitus, Migraine and Headaches

icbeAdmin July 15, 2024

Scientific Commission Finds WHO Review on Cell Phone Radiation, Tinnitus, Migraine and Headaches As Flawed…

IEEE Article on Clear Evidence of Cancer in National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiation

icbeAdmin June 30, 2024

IEEE Paper on Clear Evidence of Cancer in National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone…

Expert Scientific Webinar on EMF and Wireless Radio-frequency Radiation: Are the Safety Limits Safe?

icbeAdmin June 14, 2024

Webinar: Wireless Radio-frequency Radiation: Are the Safety Limits Safe? An ICBE-EMF-Sponsored Workshop held at the Royal Society of…

Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phones & Cordless Phones

icbeAdmin June 3, 2024

Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phones & Cordless…

Italian Regions Place Moratoriums on 5G Pending Safety Studies: Italian News Report

icbeAdmin May 7, 2024

An article in Corriere Nazionale, Inquinamento da 5G” by Erasmo Venosi details the Italian regions…

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields is a multi-disciplinary consortium of international scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise in the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) frequencies up to 300 GHz. Sources on EMF include powerlines, electrical grid equipment, cell phones, Wi-Fi, wireless “smart” devices, 4G, 5G and cell towers. Science on wireless and non-ionizing EMF continues to indicate serious health and safety risks.

The post News on Wireless and EMF Science, Health and Safety appeared first on International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.