Select Page
Share

World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s Position on Wireless and Health

In 2011 wireless radiation  was classified as a “Possible Human Carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO). 

The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on cancer recommends reducing exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones.  There are also expert advisors of the  World Health Organization who are making clear statements that radiofrequency radiation is a carcinogen backed by scientific evidence.  On this page we have the documentation of the statements and videos of the World Health organization experts speaking. 

As of 2019, the WHO IARC advisory committee recommends a reevaluation.

Due to the publishing of  new research ( Hardell and Carlberg 2017,  Miller et al. 2018 Coureau et al., 2014 , Lerchl 2015, Falcioni et al.2018) over the last decade,  the WHO/IARC advisory committee released a report last year recommending wireless radiation be re-evaluated by 2024 as a  “high priority.”  

Read the report here https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IARCMonographs-AGReport-Priorities_2020-2024.pdf

Almost a decade ago, at the WHO IARC press conference in 2011, IARC Director Christopher Wild advised in the IARC press Release that people start taking precautions to reduce exposures to cellphone radiation, “Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.” 

It is important to note that the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer is a different entity than the World Health Organization EMF Project. The EMF Project was started with industry money and has been criticized for lack of transparency and deep roots to industry. As an example, we are not informed as to who writes the factsheets  and content and when asked, there is no response.  The one paid staff member on the EMF Project is an engineer who has a history of support by wireless companies.

However the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF Working group for the evaluation of RFR was vetted for conflicts of interest and is considered the gold standard for evaluating carcinogens. On this page we present the information from this body of the World Health Organization. 

Please watch these videos of World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer’s Position on Wireless and Health. After the videos we have more information all hyperlinked to the source. We also review members of the WHO/IARC and their recent statements so that the reader can see examples of statements by experts on the scientific evidence showing harm. Yes, there is scientific evidence. 

What Is The World Health Organization (WHO) Position on Wireless and Health?

  1. 2011: Wireless radiation is classified as a “Possible Human Carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO).
    World Health Organization Press Release on Wireless Radiation

    World Health Organization Press Release on Wireless Radiation

2019 Update: WHO/IARC Advisory group recommend re-evaluating RF in light of new science since 2011 classification. 

  • The  advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of World Health Organization  advisory group has released new recommendations to reassess  as a “high priority” the cancer risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation between 2020–2024.  The  recommendations were published in The Lancet  Oncology on April 18, 2019. The  IARC advisory group of 29 scientists from 18 countries met in March, 2019. Many WHO/IARC scientists have publicly stated the classification will likely strengthen due to the National Toxicology Program study. 
  1. The Class 2B classification includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. It applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device- not just cell phones. This fact is detailed in the  Lancet’s published statement  and in the related press release in 2011. All wireless electronic devices emit RF-EMF (wireless radiation). It does not matter what type of device is the source. While cell phone use at the head results in highest exposures to the brain, many other devices emit lower levels of exposures that can have a cumulative effect on the whole body.
  1. The WHO IARC Monograph states that research shows this radiation is absorbed deeper into children’s bodies than into adults.
    • The 2013 published Monograph states, “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Read these details on page 34 of the World Health Organization’s International Association for Research on Cancer’s published Monograph on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
  1. The WHO IARC Director Christopher Wild recommends taking measures to reduce exposures until research on long term exposures is completed in light of the risk classification.
    • The 2011 Press Release by the WHO IARC states, “Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”
  1. Even in 2010 WHO stated that significantly more research is needed. Statements about proof of safety are false. 
    The WHO has published a 36-page Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (Wireless) detailing the critical research that still needs to be done with wireless, calling for research that looks at the connection with neurodegenerative diseases, cognition, and cancer—among other endpoints. Please note the following points made in the research agenda:
    • The agenda states it a high priority to look at “Prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with outcomes including behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer”. They recommend a “longitudinal design, thereby allowing the study of several outcomes and changes in technology and the use of mobile phones as well as other sources of RF EMF exposure, such as wireless laptops.”
    • The agenda prioritizes “Effects of early-life and prenatal RF exposure on development and behaviour “ because “there is still a paucity of information concerning the effects of prenatal and early life exposure to RF EMF on subsequent development and behaviour. Such studies are regarded as important because of the widespread use of mobile phones by children and the increasing exposure to other RF sources such as wireless local area networks (WLANs) and the reported effects of RF EMF on the adult EEG. “
    • Read the Research Agenda here.
  1. WHO IARC scientists continue to publish research and commentary in medical journals detailing that there are no safety assurances with wireless. They state an urgent need for well done directed research.
    • Dr. Samet, Senior Scientist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer 2011 RF-EMF Working Group stated, “The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.” in his 2014 Commentary calling for more directed research published in the journal Epidemiology.
  1. Many WHO IARC  scientists who are WHO advisors and served on the 2011 WHO IARC working group now state that additional scientific evidence indicates that wireless radiation should  be re-classified either as as a “probable human carcinogen” or a “known human carcinogen.” 

Several experts no longer are of the opinion that the evidence shows “possible carcinogenicity. They believe the evidence has increase and they are upgrading their opinion on the matter.

Scientists who participated in the WHO IARC’s RF-EMF 2011 Review of Radiofrequency Radiation 

Dr. Lennart Hardell 

“We conclude that there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There is some evidence of an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer, and clear evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site carcinogen. Based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.”

 

-Dr. Lennart Hardell in “Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz”  published in the International Journal of Oncology

 

Dr. Lennart Hardell, a medical doctor and oncologist known for his research on environmental cancer-causing agents such as Agent Orange has repeatedly published studies documenting the scientific evidence confirming that radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic. 

 

 

Chris Portier PhD

“Educational and public health institutions should be encouraged to reduce exposures, especially of young children, to RF devices…A careful review of the scientific literature demonstrates there are potentially dangerous effects from RF” 

– Chris Portier PhD in his scientific presentation and official call for invoking the precautionary principle during the 2015 BIOEM Conference. 

 

Chris Portier PhD was the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Dr. Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for 32 years where he served as the NIEHS Associate Director, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program, and Senior Scientific Advisor to the Director. 

Dariusz Leszczynski PhD

“In my opinion, the currently available scientific evidence is sufficient to upgrade the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation from the possible carcinogen (Group 2B) to the probable carcinogen (Group 2A)”

 

“Precautionary Principle should be implemented as broadly as possible and feasible…Whenever possible and feasible, wired connections should be promoted over wireless.” 

-Dariusz Leszczynski PhD in his 2015 lecture to officials in Serbia. 

Dariusz Leszczynski PhD is a former Finnish government researcher with numerous publications on RFR who now lectures widely on the urgent need for the precautionary principle. 

 

Igor Belyaev PhD 

“The NTP findings along with recent replicated animal studies from Germany [47], supplemented other studies and provided sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity of mobile phone exposure in animals. Studies with chronic exposures have also provided evidence for possible mechanisms of MW effects, which involve production of reactive oxygen/nitrogene species. Taking into account the evidence from human epidemiological studies, MW exposure from mobile phones was suggested to be classified as human carcinogen according to the generally accepted Bradford Hill criteria.”

 

Igor Belyaev in Main Regularities and Health Risks from Exposure to Non-Thermal Microwaves of Mobile Communication

 

Igor Belyaev is the Head Research Scientist at the Cancer Research Institute at the Slovak Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia and has published numerous studies on the non thermal effects of RFR.     

 

Dr. Anthony Miller 

“Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).”

-Dr. Anthony Miller “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)” published in  Environmental Research,

Dr. Anthony Miller has hundreds of publications and has four decades of expertise with the WHO IARC. He was assistant Executive Director (Epidemiology), National Cancer Institute of Canada, Director, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Toronto, Director, Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto and more. 

 

Ronald Melnick PhD

 

“The NTP studies show that the assumption that RF radiation is incapable of causing cancer or other adverse health effects other than by tissue heating is wrong.”

 

Ronald Melnick PhD in “Regarding ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” published  in Health Physics 

 

Ronald Melnick PhD  served as a toxicologist for 28+ years at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), before retiring in 2009.  At NTP/NIEHS, Dr. Melnick was involved in the design, monitoring and interpretation of toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of numerous environmental and occupational agents including 1,3-butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene, water disinfection byproducts, etc. He led the design of the NTP carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in rodents.

 

James C. Lin PhD

 

“The time is right for the IARC to upgrade its previous epidemiology based classification of RF exposure to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans. Recently, two relatively well-conducted RF and microwave exposure studies employing the Sprague–Dawley strain of rats—without, however, using any cancer-promoting agents (or cocarcinogens)—showed consistent results in significantly increased total primary cancer or overall tumor rates in animals exposed to RF radiation.” 

 

James C. Lin PhD in The Significance of Primary Tumors in the NTP Study of Chronic Rat Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation published in IEEE Microwave Magazine 

 

James C. Lin PhD is Editor in Chief of  Bioelectromagnetics and has numerous publications on RFR and electromagnetic radiation. He has served in numerous leadership capacities including the President’s Committee on the National Medal of Science. He was awarded the d’Arsonval Medal Award of the Bioelectromagnetics Society  in 2003. 

 

  1. In 2015 over 200 scientists appealed to the WHO and the United Nations to take immediate action to reduce health risks of wireless radiation and “the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods.”
  1. On October 14, 2015, WHO scientists with expertise in wireless radiation wrote a Letter to the U.S. Secretary of Education detailing children’s unique vulnerability to the health risks of wireless technology.
    The Doctors and scientists call for educating students on safer ways to use technology and for installing safer hardwired technology in school classrooms.
  1. In 2002 The World Health Organization issued “Children’s Health and Environment: A Review of Evidence” (see page 184) recommending reducing exposures to children:
    • “The possible adverse health effects in children associated with radiofrequency fields have not been fully investigated.”
    • “Because there are suggestions that RF exposure may be more hazardous for the fetus and child due to their greater susceptibility, prudent avoidance is one approach to keeping children’s exposure as low as possible.”
    • “Further research is needed to clarify the potential risks of ELF-EMF and radiofrequency fields for children’s health.”

Share
Share