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.”
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.