WHO EMF Project Systematic Reviews of Wireless RF Health Effects

In March 1993, over 30 years ago, the World Health Organization EMF Project published the last EHC monograph on wireless radio-frequency (RF) radiation. To repeat, the 1993 monograph is the most recent monograph on the health risks of wireless RF by the WHO EMF Project as detailed on the WHO website.

In order to update the outdated evaluation, the WHO EMF Project  issued a call for ten systematic reviews of the RF effects research in October 2019. The process has been highly criticized due to heavy ICNIRP involvement.  As Dr. Joel Moskowitz writes, “apparently, WHO only selected research groups whose members have not criticized ICNIRP’s thermally-based exposure limits. Thus, no EMF scientists who signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal were selected. This biased selection process should be challenged by all who are concerned about protecting public or environmental health.”   

Unanswered Transparency Questions 

A few years ago when the WHO EMF Project first put out the call for researchers to participate, the lack of transparency and bias became clear. Several scientists wrote to the WHO requesting clarity and transparency . However they never received a full response to their questions which included:

• Who specifically will select the teams?
• What are the criteria of selection?
• Will scientists who are also a part of ICNIRP be identified in the COI process?
• The WHO EMF Project has several factsheets online. Which scientists wrote these and what was the process for the conclusions put forth in these factsheets?
   

Read the letter here. It was never answered. 

World Health Organization Commissioned Research Reviews

In the meantime, several WHO EMF Project reviews have been published. They all generally conclude nearly the same thing, that scientific evidence is limited, uncertain and/or did not show an effect and more research needs to be done. Published papers are compiled in a special issue of the journal Environment International.  

These reviews have been highly criticized in several publications with several calls for retraction. Experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) reviewed the WHO’s 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms and conclude, “contrary to the opinion of the authors, 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…” 

Nordhagen and Flydal state in WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? published in Reviews on Environmental Health, that ” we identified numerous issues rendering the WHO review irrelevant and severely flawed. All flaws found skew the results in support of the review’s conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence for nonthermal effects. We show that the underlying data, when relevant studies are cited correctly, support the opposite conclusion: There are clear indications of detrimental nonthermal effects from RF-EMF exposure. ” 

Male fertility: non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro 

Cordelli, L. Ardoino, B. Benassi, C. Consales, P. Eleuteri, C. Marino, M. Sciortino, P. Villani, M. H. Brinkworth, G. Chen, J. P. McNamee, A. W. Wood, L. Belackova, J. Verbeek, F. Pacchierotti, 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, Environment International (2024), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108509 FULL TEXT LINK

• Among all the considered endpoints, the meta-analyses of animal studies provided evidence of adverse effects of RF-EMF exposure in all cases but the rate of infertile males and the size of the sired litters. The assessment of certainty according to the GRADE methodology assigned a moderate certainty to the reduction of pregnancy rate and to the evidence of no-effect on litter size, a low certainty to the reduction of sperm count, and a very low certainty to all the other meta-analysis results. Studies on human sperm exposed in vitro indicated a small detrimental effect of RF-EMF exposure on vitality and no-effect on DNA/chromatin alterations. According to GRADE, a very low certainty was attributed to these results. The few studies that used EMP exposure did not show effects on the outcomes. A low to very low certainty was attributed to these results.
• Forty studies reported data on testosterone level in either serum or testis. The pooled SMD value of the 29 studies rated at “low or some concern” RoB level was 0.87 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.30), showing a statistically significant decrease of testosterone level in RF-EMF exposed animals. The average SAR tested in these studies was 0.9 W/kg (SD 1.31, 0.001- 4.0 min-max). Eleven studies rated at “high concern” RoB level yielded an SMD value of 0.50 (95% CI -0.22 to 1.23 (Figure 18).
• Considering the outcomes of this systematic review and taking into account the limitations found in several of the studies, we suggest that further investigations with better characterization of exposure and dosimetry including several exposure levels and blinded outcome assessment were conducted.

Male fertility: human observational studies 

PW Kenny, E. Evelynne Johnson, A.M. Adesanya, C. Richmond, F. Beyer, C. Calderon, J. Rankin, M.S. Pearce, M. Toledano, D. Craig, F. Pearson, The effects of radiofrequency exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of human observational studies with dose–response meta-analysis, Environment International (2024), doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004033PDF https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108817

Excerpts from results

• Duration of phone use: The evidence is very uncertain surrounding the effects of RF-EMF on sperm concentration (10/6 mL) (MD (mean difference) per hour of daily phone use 1.6 106/mL, 95 % CI −1.7 to 4.9; 3 studies), sperm morphology (MD 0.15 percentage points of deviation of normal forms per hour, 95 % CI −0.21 to 0.51; 3 studies), sperm progressive motility (MD −0.46 percentage points per hour, 95 % CI −1.04 to 0.13; 2 studies) and total sperm count (MD per hour −0.44 106/ejaculate, 95 % CI −2.59 to 1.7; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. 
• Position of phone: There may be no or little effect of carrying a mobile phone in the front pocket on sperm concentration, total count, morphology, progressive motility or on time to pregnancy.
• Of three studies reporting on the effect of mobile phone location on sperm total motility and, or, total motile count, one showed a statistically significant effect.
• With only two studies of occupational exposure to RF-EMF and heterogeneity in the population and exposure source (technicians exposed to microwaves or seamen exposed to radar equipment), it was not plausible to statistically pool findings. One study was at probably or definitely high risk of bias across all domains, the other across domains for exposure characterisation bias, outcome assessment bias and confounding.
• The majority of evidence identified was assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on male fertility with few studies assessing the impact of phone position. Overall, the evidence identified is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones on sperm outcomes. One study assessed the impact of other RF-EMF sources on male fertility amongst the general public and two studies assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure in occupational cohorts from different sources (radar or microwave) on male fertility.

Female reproductive outcomes: human observational studies  

Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Ryan P.W. Kenny, Adenike M. Adesanya, Catherine Richmond, Fiona Beyer, Carolina Calderon, Judith Rankin, Mark S. Pearce, Mireille Toledano, Dawn Craig, Fiona Pearson, The effects of radiofrequency exposure on adverse female reproductive outcomes: A systematic review of human observational studies with dose–response meta-analysis, Environment International, Available online 12 June 2024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004021 

• Overall, the body of evidence is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes.
• Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (particularly improved accuracy of exposure measurement and using appropriate statistical methods) are required to identify any potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes of interest.
• General public studies. From pairwise meta-analyses of general public studies, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on preterm birth risk …due to very low-certainty evidence. It was not feasible to meta-analyse studies reporting on the effect of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on congenital anomalies or miscarriage risk. The reported effects from the studies assessing these outcomes varied and the studies were at some risk of bias. No studies of the general public assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure on stillbirth.

 

Tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population, human observational studies 

Röösli M, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Esu E, Oringanje CM, Meremikwu M, Bosch-Capblanch X. 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. Environ Int. 2024 Jan;183:108338. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108338. Epub 2023 Dec 6. PMID: 38104437.

• Synthesis of results: For all five priority hypotheses, available research suggests that RF-EMF exposure below guideline values does not cause symptoms, but the evidence is very uncertain. The very low certainty evidence is due the low number of studies, possible risk of bias in some studies, inconsistencies, indirectness, and imprecision. In terms of non-priority hypotheses numerous exposure-outcome combinations were addressed in the 13 eligible papers without indication for an association related to a specific symptom or exposure source.
  Limitations of evidence: This review topic includes various challenges related to confounding control and exposure assessment. Many of these aspects are inherently present and not easy to be solved in future research. Since near-field exposure from wireless communication devices is related to lifestyle, a particular challenge is to differentiate between potential biophysical effects and other potential effects from extensive use of wireless communication devices such as sleep deprivation or lack of physical activity. Future research needs novel and innovative methods to differentiate between these two hypothetical mechanisms.”

Published critique of Roosli et al., 2024

Frank, John W., Melnick, Ronald L. and Moskowitz, Joel M.. “A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms” Reviews on Environmental Health, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069

• We therefore call for a retraction of the SR by Röösli et al., and an impartial international investigation, by unconflicted experts, of both the currently available evidence base on these issues, as well as related research priorities for the future. That investigation should particularly address, above and beyond the topic of priority health outcomes to be researched (which was already assessed in the international expert consultation by WHO in 2018) [2], and the need for improved methods of accurately measuring RF-EMF exposures, suitable for large human observational studies in the general population – the Achilles heel of the current literature.

Pregnancy and birth outcomes: experimental studies on non-human mammals. 

Cordelli E, Ardoino L, Benassi B, Consales C, Eleuteri P, Marino C, Sciortino M, Villani P, Brinkworth MH, Chen G, McNamee JP, Wood AW, Belackova L, Verbeek J, Pacchierotti F. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals. Environ Int. 2023 Oct;180:108178. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108178. Epub 2023 Aug 30. PMID: 37729852.

• Eighty-eight papers could be included in this review. Effects on fecundity. The meta-analysis of studies on litter size, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.92 W/kg, did not show an effect of RF-EMF exposure (MD 0.05; 95% CI −0.21 to 0.30). The meta-analysis of studies on resorbed and dead fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 20.26 W/kg, showed a significant increase of the incidence in RF-EMF exposed animals (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.66). The results were similar in the dose–response analysis. 
• Effects on the offspring health at birth. The meta-analysis of studies on fetal weight, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 9.83 W/kg, showed a small decrease in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48). The meta-analysis of studies on fetal length, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.55 W/kg, showed a moderate decrease in length at birth (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83). The meta-analysis of studies on the percentage of fetuses with malformations, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 6.75 W/kg, showed a moderate increase in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.68 to −0.23). The meta-analysis of studies on the incidence of litters with malformed fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 16.63 W/kg, showed a statistically significant detrimental RF-EMF effect (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.9 to 5.46). The results were similar in the dose–response analyses. Delayed effects on the offspring health. RF-EMF exposure was not associated with detrimental effects on brain weight (SMD 0.10; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.29) and on learning and memory functions (SMD −0.54; 95% CI −1.24 to 0.17). RF-EMF exposure was associated with a large detrimental effect on motor activity functions (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38) and a moderate detrimental effect on motor and sensory functions (SMD −0.66; 95% CI −1.18 to −0.14). RF-EMF exposure was not associated with a decrease of the size of litters conceived by F2 female offspring (SMD 0.08; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.55). Notably, meta-analyses of neurobehavioural effects were based on few studies, which suffered of lack of independent replication deriving from only few laboratories.

Published Critique of Cordelli et al., 2023

Nordhagen, Else K. and Flydal, Einar. “WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards ” Reviews on Environmental Health, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0089

• “While the WHO systematic review presents itself as thorough, scientific, and relevant to human health, we identified numerous issues rendering the WHO review irrelevant and severely flawed. All flaws found skew the results in support of the review’s conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence for nonthermal effects. We show that the underlying data, when relevant studies are cited correctly, support the opposite conclusion: There are clear indications of detrimental nonthermal effects from RF-EMF exposure.” 
• “The numerous flaws all downplay effects found in the studies, thus creating the false impression of few and minor effects, lowering the quality of the meta-analysis to – in our opinion – an unacceptable level.”
• “Our findings show that the conclusion of EHC2023 is not well-founded, and therefore the final conclusions of EHC2023 that no conclusion can be drawn that are (EHC2023, p. 31) “certain enough to inform decisions at a regulatory level” cannot to be trusted. The errors, flaws and omissions are grave enough to render EHC2023 unscientific and unethical, and it should therefore be retracted.”

Human self-reported symptoms: human experimental studies 

Bosch-Capblanch X, Esu E, Oringanje CM, Dongus S, Jalilian H, Eyers J, Auer C, Meremikwu M, Röösli M. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies. Environ Int. 2024 Apr 2;187:108612. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108612.  

• Limitations of evidence: experimental conditions are substantially different from real-life situations in the duration, frequency, distance and position of the exposure. Most studies were conducted in young, healthy volunteers, who might be more resilient to RF-EMF than the general population. The outcomes of interest in this systematic review were symptoms, which are self-reported. The available information did not allow to assess the potential effects of exposures beyond acute exposure and in elderly or in chronically ill people. It cannot be ruled out that a real EMF effect in IEI-EMF groups is masked by a mix with insensitive subjects. However, studies on symptoms reporting and/or field perceptions did not find any evidence that there were particularly vulnerable individuals in the IEI-EMF group, although in open provocation studies, when volunteers were informed about the presence or absence of EMF exposure, such differences were consistently observed.

Cognition: human observational studies 

Geza Benke, Michael J. Abramson, Chris Brzozek, Steve McDonald, Helen Kelsall, Masoumeh Sanagou, Berihun M. Zeleke, Jordy Kaufman, Sue Brennan, Jos Verbeek, Ken Karipidis,The effects of radiofrequency exposure on cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human observational studies, Environment International,2024

• 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. Further studies are needed to address all types of populations, exposures and cognitive outcomes, particularly studies investigating environmental and occupational exposure in adults. Future studies also need to address uncertainties in the assessment of exposure and standardise testing of specific domains of cognitive function to enable synthesis across studies and increase the certainty of the evidence.

Cognitive performance: human experimental studies

Pophof, J. Kuhne, G. Schmid, E. Weiser, H. Dorn, B. Henschenmacher, J. Burns, H. Danker-Hopfe, C. Sauter, B. Pophof, The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: Systematic review and meta-analyses, Environment International (2024), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108899

• None of the meta-analyses observed a statistically significant effect of RF-EMF exposure  compared to sham on cognitive performance as measured by the confidence interval  surrounding the Hedges’s g or the significance of the z-statistic.
• 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. For 16 out of 35 subdomains some uncertainty remains, because of   limitations in the study quality, inconsistency in the results or imprecision of the combined  effect size estimate. Future research should focus on construction and motor performance,  elderly, and consideration of both sexes.

F. Meyer, A. Bitsch, H.J. Forman, A. Fragoulis, P. Ghezzi, B. Henschenmacher, R. Kellner, J. Kuhne, T. Ludwig, D. Sachno, G. Schmid, K. Tsaioun, J. Verbeek, R. Wright, The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on biomarkers of oxidative stress in vivo and in vitro: A systematic review of experimental studies, Environment International (2024), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envint.2024.108940

List of Published Protocols for WHO Systematic Reviews

Susanna Lagorio, Maria Blettner, Dan Baaken, Maria Feychting, Ken Karipidis, Tom Loney, Nicola Orsini, Martin Röösli, Marilia Silva Paulo, Mark Elwood. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A protocol for a systematic review of human observational studies. Environ Int. 2021 Aug 22;157:106828. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828.

Status: Not Done 

Meike Mevissen, Jerrold M. Ward, Annette Kopp-Schneider, James P. McNamee, Andrew W. Wood, Tania M. Rivero, Kristina Thayer, Kurt Straif. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) on cancer in laboratory animal studies. Environment International. Volume 161, 2022. 107106. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107106.

Status: Not Done 

Bernd Henschenmacher, Annette Bitsch, Tonia de las Heras Gala, Henry Jay Forman, Athanassios Fragoulis, Pietro Ghezzi, Rupert Kellner, Wolfgang Koch, Jens Kuhne, Dmitrij Sachno, Gernot Schmid, Katya Tsaioun, Jos Verbeek, Robert Wright. The effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on biomarkers of oxidative stress in vivo and in vitro: A protocol for a systematic review. Environ Int. 158, 2022, 106932. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106932.

Status:  Done Meyer et al., 2014 

Ryan P.W. Kenny, Evelyn Barron Millar, Adenike Adesanya, Catherine Richmond, Fiona Beyer, Carolina Calderon, Judith Rankin, Mireille Toledano, Maria Feychting, Mark S Pearce, Dawn Craig, Fiona Pearson. The effects of radiofrequency exposure on male fertility and adverse reproductive outcomes: A protocol for two systematic reviews of human observational studies with meta-analysis. Environ Int. 158, 2022, 106968. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106968.

 Status: Completed review Kenny et al., 2024

Francesca Pacchierotti, Lucia Ardoino, Barbara Benassi, Claudia Consales, Eugenia Cordelli, Patrizia Eleuteri, Carmela Marino, Maurizio Sciortino, Martin H.Brinkworth, Guangdi Chen, James P. McNamee, Andrew William Wood, Carlijn R. Hooijmans. Rob B.M. de Vries. Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcomes: Protocols for a systematic review of experimental studies in non-human mammals and in human sperm exposed in vitro. Environment Int. Volume 157, December 2021, 106806

 Status: Completed Cordelli et al., 2024

Geza Benke, Michael J Abramson, B M Zeleke, Jordy Kaufman, Ken Karipidis, Helen Kelsall, Steve McDonald, Chris Brzozek, Maria Feychting, Sue Brennan. The effect of long-term radiofrequency exposure on cognition in human observational studies: A protocol for a systematic review. Environ Int. 158, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106972.

Status: Completed. Benke et al., 2024  

Blanka Pophof, Jacob Burns, Heidi Danker-Hopfe, Hans Dorn, Cornelia Egblomassé-Roidl, Torsten Eggert, Kateryna Fuks, Bernd Henschenmacher, Jens Kuhne, Cornelia Sauter, Gernot Schmid. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive performance in human experimental studies: A protocol for a systematic review. Environ Int. 2021 Jul 29;157:106783. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106783.

Status: Completed Pophof et al 2024 

Martin Röösli, Stefan Dongus, Hamed Jalilian, Maria Feychting, John Eyers, Ekpereonne Esu, Chioma Moses Oringanje, Martin Meremikwu, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population: A protocol for a systematic review on human observational studies. Environ Int, Volume 157, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106852.

Status: Completed. See Roosli et al., 2024 

Xavier Bosch-Capblanch, Ekpereonne Esu, Stefan Dongus, Chioma Moses Oringanje, Hamed Jalilian, John Eyers, Gunnhild Oftedal, Martin Meremikwu, Martin Röösli. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A protocol for a systematic review of human experimental studies. Environ Int. 158, 2022, 106953. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106953.

Status: Completed. Bosch-Capblanch et al., 2024

Lagorio S, Blettner M, Baaken D, Feychting M, Karipidis K, Loney T, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Elwood M. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A protocol for a systematic review of human observational studies. Environ Int. 2021 Dec;157:106828. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828. Epub 2021 Aug 22. PMID: 34433115; PMCID: PMC8484862.

Status: Not Completed 

Jos Verbeek, Gunnhild Oftedal, Maria Feychting, Eric van Rongen, Maria Rosaria Scarfì, Simon Mann, Rachel Wong, Emilie van Deventer. Prioritizing health outcomes when assessing the effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A survey among experts. Environ Int. 146, 2021. 106300. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106300.

Published Critiques of WHO Reviews

Nordhagen E, Flydal E. WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2024. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0089.

Frank, John W., Melnick, Ronald L. and Moskowitz, Joel M.. “A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms” Reviews on Environmental Health, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069

Factcheck: The World Health Organization has not made a determination that cell towers are safe.

First, there are two distinct and separate entities under the WHO addressing the issue; 1. the WHO EMF Project who drafted several online web pages that seem to show safety and 2. the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer which issues scientific determinations of the strength of cancer associations based on a review of the research.

In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use” as stated in the 2011 Press Release by the WHO IARC. Since that date the several new studies have found associations between cell phone radiation and cancer.

• Read the IARC/WHO  Monograph.
• Read the 2011 IARC/WHO Press Release
• Read The Lancet “Carcinogenicity of Radiofrequency Fields” 

Since 2011, the scientific evidence linking wireless to cancer has significantly increased and today several published reviews include that the current body of evidence indicates cell phone radiation is proven Group 1 human carcinogen (Miller et al 2018, Peleg et al 2018 Carlberg and Hardell 2017, Belpomme et al 2018).

The WHO/IARC advisory committee released a 2020 report  recommending wireless radiation be re-evaluated by 2024 as a  “high priority.” In 2024, the advisor group again recommended RF for review.