Skip to content

Scientific Papers PUBLISHED BY ICBE-EMF

CRITIQUE OF WHO FUNDED REVIEW ON TINNITUS, MIGRAINE AND HEADACHE ETC Published: July 15, 2024

A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms

  • John W. Frank, Ronald L. Melnick and Joel M. Moskowitz 

From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health 2024
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-006

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2012 initiated an expert consultation about research on the health effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for a WHO monograph that was last updated in 1993. The project was abandoned over concerns about the quality of the commissioned review papers. The WHO restarted the project in 2019 by commissioning 10 systematic reviews (SRs) of the research on RF-EMF exposure and adverse biological and health outcomes in laboratory animals, cell cultures, and human populations. The second of these SRs, published in 2024, addresses human observational studies of RF-EMF exposure and non-specific symptoms, including tinnitus, migraine/headache, and sleep disturbance. The present commentary is a critical appraisal of the scientific quality of this SR (SR7) employing criteria developed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 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.

Open Access paper may be viewed/downloaded here:  https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html

CRITIQUE OF COSMOS CELL PHONE BRAIN TUMOR STUDY Published: June 26, 2024

Correspondence

COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use

 To the Editors, Environment International

We write to point out serious methodological problems with the Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS) brain tumor risk paper (Feychting et al., 2024). Because of these flaws, the study does not provide reliable estimates of the risks of tumors associated with exposure to mobile phone radio frequency radiation (RFR). This paper which summarizes interim results from this 25-plus year cohort study (Schüz et al., 2011) demonstrates many of the overall study’s shortcomings.

Open Access paper may be viewed/downloaded here

PAPER ON ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE CELL PHONE RADIATION Published: April 4, 2023

Cell phone radiation exposure limits and engineering solutions

Summary Statement
This paper details six low-cost engineering fixes that could dramatically reduce cellphone radiation. The paper also discusses seven blind spots in the way we have set emissions standards for cellphones. Those blind spots suggest that current standards are inadequate and that no one can be assured that cellphones on the market today are safe.

Highlights and Background

Press release

Written statements by Joel Moskowitz, Elizabeth Kelley and Paul Héroux. 

ICBE-EMF Infographics

Cellphone Safety Infographic (English)

Cellphone Safety infographic (French) 

Cellphone safety infographic (Turkish) 

Paper on ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS OF ICNIRP and FCC Limits published October 18, 2022

 
Abstract In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse efects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specifc absorption rate (SAR) of 4W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological efects were due to excessive tissue heating and no efects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specifed by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse efects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological efects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically signifcant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reafrmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientifc evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health efects studies.
 
 
 

For more information, see “Events” page