Who can be sure wireless is safe? EMFs do have non-thermal effects!

Written on 9 February 2025. Posted in News from ESC.

Can mobile phones be a health hazard? This question has occupied minds for decades. In 2011, there was sufficient reason for the WHO to designate radiation from mobile phones as possibly carcinogenic. Since then, science has not been idle. There is debate about the need for a new paradigm that recognises non-thermal effects of EMFs.

Several scientists argue that with today’s knowledge, the assessment should no longer be possibly carcinogenic, but probably or even definitely carcinogenic. And there are other health effects associated with wireless use that are of concern. Thousands of studies have been conducted since the 1990s. Most independently funded studies indicate adverse effects even well below exposure limits.

This is worrying because EMF exposure will continue to increase with plans for a smart future where everything and everyone will be wirelessly connected. It is time for WHO to rethink its assessment of the risks of wireless. That is why WHO commissioned systematic reviews. However, the systematic reviews conducted so far raise many questions.

In September 2024 and January 2025, the latest systematic reviews on the risks of EMFs were published. These cover cancer risks from EMFs. Previous reviews in this series of studies on various health effects due to EMFs covered oxidative stress, cognitive performance, reproductive outcomes in females and fertility in males (both human and non-human), cognition, self-reported symptoms (EHS), tinnitus, migraine and nonspecific symptoms.

What has been the outcome of these systematic reviews sent to WHO so far? Without going into the scientific details here, and in brief, they say that no or perhaps only limited risks have been found that EMFs can have health effects. See the table below.

The stage seems set for a final verdict

Although much preliminary work has been done, WHO has not yet taken a formal position on the issue. Nor will WHO do so anytime soon, as there are still more systematic studies to come on the health effects of EMFs. But there is already much in the mainstream news media on the matter, reassuring the public that a link between cancer and EMFs certainly does not exist. And that using wireless is perfectly safe.

This is a message that will probably sound good to many, but can we really be that sure? Isn’t there any reason for doubt? Does every other scientist with expertise in the field then agree with the outcome of the WHO studies? The answer is no, certainly not.

As a matter of fact, these series of reviews are widely criticised

Several scientists whose research finds negative effects of EMFs have expressed concern about the outcome of the WHO cancer assessment. They criticise:

the one-sided, biased composition of the WHO research groups
the methods used for the systematic review and analysis
the lack of independence, the involvement of ICNIRP-related individuals
the results contradicting those of several other peer-reviewed meta-analytic studies
the cherry-picking of human studies
ignoring the growing number of experimental studies in animal and human cell cultures and in whole animals
the flaws made

See e.g. J. Moskowitz, Microwave news, D. Davis and H. Lai.

What does the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields say?

ICBE-EMF, founded by experts in research on the health effects of RFR from wireless devices and infrastructure, noted serious problems with the WHO review of human observational studies on the effects of radiofrequency EMF exposure and non-specific symptoms, including tinnitus, migraine/headache and sleep disorders by M. Röösli et al, and calls for its withdrawal.

ICBE-EMF also published on the serious flaws in the WHO systematic review on cancer by K. Karpidis et al. ICBE-EMF concludes that ‘the review on cancer seems to reflect biases of the authors’ and says that ‘the systematic review on cancer provides no scientific justification for the conclusion that there is any certainty that exposure to RF-EMF does not cause cancer. The review offers no guarantee of the safety of wireless communications and should not be used to determine public health policy.’ The cancer team was very quick to respond to the letter from ICBE-EMF, brushing aside the objections. It does not look like the two sides can even get a step closer to each other..

Certainly not insignificant is also the opinion of J.C. Lin

J.C. Lin is professor emeritus of electrical and computer engineering, bioengineering, physiology and biophysics. A former member of ICNIRP 2004-2016, he knows ICNIRP inside out. In his latest critique, he mentions the ties that have been there from the beginning between WHO-EMF and ICNIRP. He points to the industry funding of the evaluation project up to 50% and the involvement of ICNIRP-related people in this WHO project. He argues that if the in 2021 released WHO-EMF methodology for these systematic reviews is not evaluated, little certainty can be attached to the results of the systematic reviews.

Lin’s conclusion says it all: “accepting the conclusions of a systematic review without proper appraisal to ascertain its limitations, transparency, and credibility can be precarious.” and “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.”

ESC is very concerned about these developments

The official authorities rely on a very small group of self-referencing scientists from one scientific school of thought, which has links to industry. For years, the authorities have ignored the many objecting scientists from the other scientific school. Much evidence has been unfairly dismissed. It cannot be that, contrary to the 2011 WHO position, with all the new scientific results this latest series of systematic reviews may lead to an official WHO position that EMFs are not harmful at all. Europeans for Safe Connections call on the WHO to take all criticisms of the current reviews into account in this project and to also include the insights of the objecting scientists in the assessment.

There are troubling signs that something is amiss

Nowadays, we see so many unexplained illnesses, so many people who are sick and tired. We see more and more people getting cancer, even at a young age. It used to be a disease of the elderly. Now everyone knows victims of cancer. Fertility rates are falling and fertility clinics advise not to have the phone in your pocket. For several decades, we have seen birds and insects disappear. We see damaged trees near antennas. We are told that biodiversity is declining. And people with EHS know all too well from personal experience that EMFs affect physical health and that current exposure is totally unacceptable. And we know that there is plenty of high-quality research that explains these observations.

Just coincidence?

Isn’t it remarkable that these developments have been happening since the introduction of wireless communications? Ever since the introduction of radio and radar, all life has been covered from head to toe with an increasingly intense blanket of artificial EMFs? Could the simultaneously occurring negative developments really all be coincidence? Can that position stand when so much high-quality research by so many scientists demonstrating harmful effects is disqualified by only a limited number of scientists selected by the WHO?

Scientific doubt can be used as a tool

More and more people of influence recognise that industry uses doubt to its own advantage. That has been the case with smoking, with asbestos, with diesel, etc. And it is now happening with vaping, with chemical pesticides, … Wouldn’t the same happen with EMFs?

A call for independent advisory body

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has called for the creation of an independent body to review the risks of EMFs and develop new guidelines for human and environmental safety. The EESC argues that current ICNIRP based guidelines, which focus only on thermal effects, are outdated and inadequate. With so much evidence pointing to non-thermal effects, it’s clear that EU needs a more comprehensive approach to understanding EMF risks.

The EESC believes that the EU must take the lead in establishing up-to-date, independent guidelines that account for the latest research. They emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach that includes input from a wide range of scientific fields and experts. Only then can EU develop truly protective standards that safeguard both public health and the environment.

The world is waiting for a paradigm shift

Unnecessary retarding is the usual question for more research. How many more studies must be rejected, how many more scientists must be ignored, how much damage must be done before it is recognized that we need a new paradigm? The paradigm that only thermal effects of EMFs matter is long gone. EMFs have biological effects far below current exposure limits, and these can cause health damage. It is not only the thermal effect of EMFs that authorities should be concerned about.

A wake-up call

Certainly, the truth will eventually prevail as the facts continue to emerge. But wouldn’t it be wiser to treat this new environmental pollutant as potentially harmful from now on and at least apply the precautionary principle correctly? And for the sake of people and all life Europeans for Safe Connections calls on EU to recognize that it is time for a paradigm shift and to change the approach of EMF safety.

WHO systematic reviews All to be found here	Authors	Results
Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals	Eugenia Cordelli, Lucia Ardoino, Barbara Benassi, Claudia Consales, … Francesca Pacchierotti October 2023 Article 108178	This systematic review of animal studies shows that RF-EMF exposure does not affect fecundity and likely has only a small effect on fetal weight decrease.
The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population: A systematic review and meta-analysis on human observational studies	Martin Röösli, Stefan Dongus, Hamed Jalilian, John Eyers, … Xavier Bosch-Capblanch January 2024 Article 108338	This is currently the best available evidence to underpin safety of RF-EMF. There is no indication that RF-EMF below guideline values causes symptoms. However, inherent limitations of the research results in substantial uncertainty.
Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro	Eugenia Cordelli, Lucia Ardoino, Barbara Benassi, Claudia Consales, … Francesca Pacchierotti March 2024 Article 108509	Risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias weakened the certainty of results. RF-EMF is unlike to decrease the fecundity of exposed male rodents. RF-EMF may affect testicular tissue and sperm quality but the evidence is uncertain. Impact on surrogate markers of fertility may not translate into functional effects.
The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies	Xavier Bosch-Capblanch, Ekpereonne Esu, Chioma Moses Oringanje, Stefan Dongus, … Martin Röösli May 2024 Article 108612	Available evidence suggests that acute RF-EMF below regulatory limits does not cause symptoms and corresponding claims in the everyday life are related to perceived and not to real EMF exposure status.
The effects of radiofrequency exposure on cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human observational studies	Geza Benke, Michael J. Abramson, Chris Brzozek, Steve McDonald, … Ken Karipidis June 2024 Article 108779	This systematic review and meta-analysis found only a few studies that provided very low to low certainty evidence of little to no association between RF-EMF exposure and learning and memory, executive function and complex attention. None of the studies among children reported on global cognitive function or other domains of cognition. Only one study reported a lack of an effect for all domains in elderly persons but this was of very low certainty evidence.
The effects of radiofrequency exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of human observational studies with dose–response meta-analysis	Ryan PW Kenny, Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Adenike M. Adesanya, Catherine Richmond, … Fiona Pearson August 2024 Article 108817	Overall, the evidence identified is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones on sperm outcomes.
The effects of radiofrequency exposure on adverse female reproductive outcomes: A systematic review of human observational studies with dose–response meta-analysis	Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Ryan P.W. Kenny, Adenike M. Adesanya, Catherine Richmond, … Fiona Pearson August 2024 Article 108816	Overall, the body of evidence is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes.
The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: Systematic review and meta-analyses	Blanka Pophof, Jens Kuhne, Gernot Schmid, Evelyn Weiser, … Cornelia Sauter September 2024 Article 108899	Overall, the results from all domains and subclasses across their speed- and accuracy-related outcome measures according to GRADE provide high to low certainty of evidence that short-term RF-EMF exposure does not reduce cognitive performance in human experimental studies.
The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on biomarkers of oxidative stress in vivo and in vitro: A systematic review of experimental studies	Felix Meyer, Annette Bitsch, Henry Jay Forman, Athanassios Fragoulis, … Robert Wright December 2024 Article 108940	The evidence for or against a relation between RF-EMF and biomarkers of oxidative stress is overall of very low certainty.
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	Ken Karipidis, Dan Baaken, Tom Loney, Maria Blettner, … Susanna Lagorio September 2024 Article 108983	Exposure to RF from mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of brain cancer. RF from broadcasting antennas or base stations likely does not increase the risk of childhood cancer. Occupational exposure to RF may not increase the risk of brain cancer.
The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part II: Less researched outcomes	Ken Karipidis, Dan Baaken, Tom Loney, Maria Blettner, … Susanna Lagorio In Press, Journal Pre-proof, Available online 11 January 2025 Article 109274	For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from mobile phones, there was low certainty of evidence that it does not increase the risk of leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or thyroid cancer. For occupational RF-EMF exposure, there was very low certainty of evidence that it does not increase the risk of lymphohematopoietic system tumours or oral cavity/pharynx cancer.