Archive
4 postsThe WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety
This paper evaluates and critiques 12 WHO-commissioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses on RF-EMF health effects across outcomes including cancer and reproductive endpoints. It argues that serious methodological flaws and limitations in the WHO reviews prevent them from providing assurance of safety for cell phones and other wireless devices. The authors highlight reported evidence in the animal cancer review (high certainty for heart schwannomas; moderate certainty for brain gliomas) and describe dose-related adverse effects on male fertility and reproductive outcomes, including at exposure levels below current ICNIRP thresholds.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, an introduction
This editorial introduces a special issue supporting the WHO assessment of health effects from RF-EMF exposure, based on nine protocols and twelve systematic reviews developed over four years by more than 80 experts. It summarizes that human evidence for major cancers was moderate-certainty for no or only small effects, with lower certainty for some cancer sites, while animal evidence reported higher-certainty effects for several cancer types and adverse effects on male fertility. For cognition, symptoms, and oxidative stress, certainty was generally lower and findings more variable, and the editors note ongoing methodological challenges and the possibility of unidentified mechanisms.
Epidemiological criteria for causation applied to human health harms from RF-EMF exposure: Bradford Hill revisited
This paper is a commentary reviewing how Bradford Hill’s epidemiological criteria can be applied to multidisciplinary evidence on RF-EMF exposure and adverse health effects. It reports that systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area often reach substantially different conclusions, and argues that key weaknesses in primary studies—especially exposure measurement error and insufficient time for long-latency tumors—help explain the divergence. The author suggests these limitations may cause underestimation of potential causation if the associations are truly causal, and calls for independent guidelines to improve future epidemiological research quality.
Relationship between radiofrequency-electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones and brain tumor: meta-analyses using various proxies for RF-EMR exposure-outcome assessment
Moon et al. (2024) report a systematic review and meta-analysis on cellular phone RF-EMR and brain tumor risk. The abstract summary states elevated risks for three brain tumor types in analyses considering ipsilateral (same-side) phone use and reports increased risk with heavy and long-term use. The text also highlights disagreement with the 2024 WHO review and raises methodological concerns about WHO conclusions.