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
“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.”
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.