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.

This narrative review discusses potential public health consequences of widespread mobile phone use and the controversy around long-term cancer risks. It states that evidence from epidemiological and experimental studies suggests long-term exposure to mobile phone emissions may be linked to a small to moderate increased risk of certain cancers, while also emphasizing that data are insufficient for a final risk assessment. The author argues that even small risks could matter at the population level and that exposure-reduction measures may be indicated given uncertainties.