Tuesday, August 25, 2026

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research

The preponderance of peer-reviewed research published since 1990 has found significant adverse effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation and extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. 

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts which covers the period from 1990 through May 2026 constitutes a comprehensive collection of the peer-reviewed publications of  in vivo and in vitro research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive outcomes has found significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 72% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 78% to 90% reported significant effects.

According to Dr. Lai, 260 low-intensity (SAR < 0.40 W/kg) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure studies published since 1990 reported significant effects: "This means that biological systems are very sensitive to RFR. Moreover, it is clear that the current RFR exposure guidelines do not prevent the detrimental health effects of RFR."

The entire collection contains abstracts for more than 3,000 published papers. The abstracts can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.
---
Although 89% of 438 peer-reviewed papers published since 1997 found statistically significant evidence of oxidative effects from RFR exposure; a recent WHO systematic review which examined only 52 studies erroneously concluded, "The evidence for or against a relation between RF-EMF and biomarkers of oxidative stress is overall of very low certainty.(Meyer et al., 2024).
.
In contrast, a recent WHO systematic review of animal carcinogenicity studies concluded with "high certainty" that chronic exposure to RFR causes cancer in the brain and in the heart (Mevissen et al., 2025) and another WHO review concluded with "high certainty" that it causes infertility (Cordelli et al., 2024). 

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC had planned to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity; however, this review has been postponed. If IARC were to convene EMF experts with no conflicts of interest (including no present or past associations with ICNIRP), RFR is likely to be re-classified to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1). 

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.



Summary of Results (Last major update: June 8, 2026)

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR)

89% (n=390) of 438 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) papers published since 1997 reported significant effects including 96% (n=110) of 114 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate) ≤ 0.40 watts per kilogram (which is ten times less than the 4.0 W/kg threshold of harm that the FCC and the ICNIRP use to base their RFR exposure limits).

72% (n=396) of 550 RFR genetic effects papers published since 1990 reported significant effects including 192 (84%) of 228 studies of gene expression.

78% (n=396) of 507 RFR neurological papers published since 2007 reported significant effects.

85% (n=354) of 415 RFR reproduction and development papers published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the low-intensity exposure studies that reported significant effects, 73 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 53 studies had a SAR ≤ 0.08 W/kg.

260 low-intensity RFR exposure studies (SAR < 0.40 W/kg) published since 1990 reported significant effects.


Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

90% (n=319) of 353 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) papers published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=363) of 424 ELF/static EMF genetic effects papers published since 1990 reported significant effects including 92% (n=232) of 252 studies of gene expression.

92% (n=364) of 397 ELF/static EMF neurological papers published since 2007 reported significant effects.

78% (n=82) of 105 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development papers published since 1990 reported significant effects. 



Links to download each set of abstracts

   RFR = radio frequency electromagnetic fields
   ELF = extremely low frequency or static electromagnetic fields


RFR Oxidative Effects studies

RFR Genetic Effects studies

    RFR Gene Expression studies

RFR Neurological Effects studies

RFR Reproduction / Development studies

Studies of biological effects in animals & plants exposed to low intensity RFR (SAR < 0.4 W/kg)


ELF Oxidative Effects studies

ELF Genetic Effects studies

    ELF Gene Expression studies

ELF Neurological Effects studies

ELF Reproduction studies



Intermediate Frequency studies (300 Hz – 1 MHz)


--

Feb 4, 2023 (Updated October 4, 2024)

Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (332 studies)

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 383 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 215-250 for a table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

1. Of the 383 studies published from 1997- October 2024, 340 (89%) studies reported significant effects; 43 (11%) studies found no significant effects.

2. Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation.

3. Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) (<0.4 W/kg) of exposure. See 98 studies marked LI for low intensity, 94 (96%) low intensity studies found effects.

4. Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in many different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”

5. Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to months.

6. Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table, pp. 215-250). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of radiofrequency radiation during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects. They are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniform fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

Click on the following link to download the 250-page document (pdf): Link









Tuesday, August 11, 2026

NTP Cellphone Carcinogenicity Study: Followup Studies

Flawed "Validation" Studies Do Not Negate Established Evidence 
That Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats

Summary: A new paper published in Environmental Health finds that the Japanese and Korean cell phone radiation cancer studies do not prove cell phone safety, as they were underpowered and used too few exposure doses to legitimately challenge the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s landmark findings of increased cancer from long-term cell phone radiation exposure. Long-overdue policy changes to reduce public exposure are urgently needed.

A new peer reviewed paper published in the journal Environmental Health states that two industry-linked “validation” studies from Japan and Korea published in 2026, designed to verify the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) finding that cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation causes cancer in rats, were so underpowered and narrowly designed such that they could never have confirmed or refuted the original results, regardless of the outcome. The authors state that these “validation” studies should not comfort the public when it comes to the safety of cell phones and other wireless devices.

The paper “Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: A commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation,” authored by Ronald L. Melnick (formerly of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), Joel M. Moskowitz (University of California, Berkeley), and Paul Héroux (McGill University) on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), examines the design and interpretation of the Japan and Korea studies against long-standing scientific and regulatory standards for animal carcinogenicity testing.

Background

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based largely on results from human epidemiological studies. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued the final report of their $30 million animal studies concluding there is “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to cell phone (RF) radiation for two years developed malignant heart schwannomas, a rare tumor, along with “some evidence” of brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. The NTP study was designed to provide greater sensitivity than international guidelines for rigorous cancer-testing.

A study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute in 2018 reported increased tumors similar to those observed in the NTP. These new animal cancer findings, along with additional human studies, prompted the WHO/IARC advisory group to repeatedly recommend a new evaluation of the scientific evidence on the carcinogenicity of wireless radiation. Many scientists with expertise in environmental carcinogenicity then published their conclusion that the current evidence is now consistent with IARC criteria for the classification of wireless RF radiation as a “probable human carcinogen”  (IARC Group 2A), or even  “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

However, after the NTP study was released, new animal studies were launched in Japan and Korea, under an “International Validation Project,” aiming to test whether the NTP’s findings were reproducible. Their results, separately published in 2026, concluded that long-term RF radiation exposure did not produce reproducible carcinogenic or genotoxic effects.

However, according to the new paper, the Japanese and Korean animal studies did not replicate the NTP study and had several deficiencies, including:

  • Severely Reduced Statistical Power: The follow-up studies used only 70 animals per group, compared to 90 per group in the NTP study. Power calculations indicate that detecting a significant response for rare tumors at the lower exposure level used in those studies would require many more animals per group.
  • Omission of High-Dose Groups: The follow-up studies tested only a single exposure level (4 W/kg) and dropped the NTP’s highest exposure level (6 W/kg), where significant carcinogenic effects were most statistically pronounced.
  • Violation of FDA and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines: Testing guidelines by these groups require at least three different doses plus a control group to conduct a critical dose-response trend analysis. Single-dose studies eliminate the ability to detect dose-dependent trends.
  • Overlooked Signals of Harm: Despite being underpowered, the Korean study actually observed a 3% incidence rate of heart schwannomas in exposed rats (versus 0% in controls), matching the tumor rate observed at 3 W/kg in the NTP study, yet the researchers surprisingly dismissed the finding.
  • Prominent Role of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and Industry-Friendly Advisors: The project’s principal investigator was an ICNIRP member, and the advisory committee overseeing the research was heavily composed of current and former ICNIRP members, several of whom have served as industry consultants. The Japan/Korea studies were aimed at protecting ICNIRP’s current cell phone radiation safety limits rather than at documenting radiation risks.

The authors of the new analysis conclude that the Japan and Korea studies’ conclusion of “no reproducible carcinogenic potential” of cell phone radiation is simply not supported by the studies’ design and, in the case of the Korean study, is undercut by its own data. Therefore, the Japan and Korea studies do not alter the National Toxicology Program’s finding of “clear evidence” of cancer.

In a paper published earlier this year, Melnick and Moskowitz concluded that, based on the NTP cancer findings, current FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits would need to be at least 200 times lower to protect against cancer risk from 8 hours of daily exposure. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields is calling on governments to implement policies that reduce public exposure and inform cell phone users on how to minimize their risk.

Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, lead author and retired toxicologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who led the design of the original NTP radiofrequency radiation studies:

“The Japan and Korea studies cannot be used as proof of safety. To properly verify a study that found clear evidence of rare tumors like heart schwannomas, follow-up research must be designed with equal or greater sensitivity. By dropping the highest exposure level, testing only a single dose, and using fewer animals, these follow-up underpowered studies failed to meet basic FDA and OECD testing guidelines and were systematically biased toward finding no significant effect. These studies appear to be engineered to come back negative, no matter what the true biology is.

In short, the Japan and Korea studies cannot be used to invalidate the National Toxicology Program’s peer-reviewed findings of carcinogenicity or to justify the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s thermal-based exposure limits.”

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, whose research focuses on the public health implications of wireless radiation exposure:

“Millions of people carry cell phones against their bodies for hours a day, and children are being exposed over far longer lifetimes than any generation before them. Public health decisions about safety limits should be built on the most rigorous animal evidence available, not on studies constructed in a way that was unlikely to detect harm even if it exists. We cannot allow flawed experimental designs to shield outdated safety guidelines from necessary, health-protective revisions. The scientific evidence on cancer and other biological effects is sufficient to warrant policies to reduce exposure.”

Dr. Paul Héroux, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University:

“These studies did not reproduce the original methodology, exposure assessment, or study conditions. From a biostatistical perspective, testing only 70 animals at a single dose level leaves a study severely underpowered to detect rare carcinogenic events. Without multiple dose groups and adequate sample sizes, finding ‘no statistically significant effect’ is an artifact of poor study design rather than evidence of safety. Importantly, when the NTP and Korean and Japanese studies are considered together, the overall evidence confirms cancer risk.” 

Implications for Public Policy and Public Health

The authors state that governments have a responsibility to protect public health by ensuring that exposure limits are based on the strongest available scientific evidence, not on studies that lack the scientific rigor necessary to detect known hazards. They conclude that the Japanese and Korean follow-up studies cannot be relied upon to dismiss the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s findings or to delay protective action. Before negative validation studies can be interpreted as evidence against the NTP’s findings, they must match or exceed the original study’s design, including the same animal model, exposure regimen, adequate group sizes, multiple exposure levels, and sufficient statistical power. Accordingly, they state that the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and regulatory agencies should base hazard evaluations and public health policies on the strongest available evidence.

ICBE-EMF maintains that current U.S. and ICNIRP exposure limits for cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and cell towers are not adequately protective because a substantial body of research reports cancer and other biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, neurological effects, and reproductive harm. The Commission calls on governments to halt the rollout of new wireless technologies until independent safety assessments are completed and to adopt policies that reduce RF radiation exposure risks.

Scientific reference:

Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M., Héroux, P. et al. Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation. Environ Health 25, 66 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5

Read the Scientific Paper

About the ICBE-EMF 

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including RF radiation. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. 

https://icbe-emf.org/flawed-validation-studies-do-not-negate-the-established-evidence-that-cell-phone-radiation-causes-cancer-in-rats-scientists-conclude/


Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation

Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM, Héroux P, on behalf of International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation. Environ Health 25, 66 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5.

Abstract

Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis often arise due to differences in study design among reported studies. For carcinogenicity assessments, regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and intergovernmental advisory organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), specify the use of at least three dose levels plus control group for trend analyses, with the highest dose inducing a measurable toxic response. In addition, there needs to be a sufficient number of animals per group to have adequate power to detect a true carcinogenic effect. Departure from such recommendations can weaken the interpretations of study results. We examine here two recent carcinogenicity studies from Japan and Korea that were conducted following the positive carcinogenicity study of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in experimental animals by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The Japan and Korea follow-up studies used fewer animals per group, a single RFR exposure group, and a lower exposure level than the NTP study. Not surprisingly, while the NTP study revealed the carcinogenicity of RFR, the Japanese and Korean studies, which had reduced statistical power compared to the NTP study, issued conclusions conflicting with those of the more substantial NTP study on the health effects of RFR. In general, carcinogenicity studies with weaker doses, fewer exposure groups, and reduced statistical power should not be used to test the validity of more robust studies.

Excerpt

Despite the numerous limitations in their study design, the authors of the Japan-Korea studies concluded there is “no reproducible carcinogenic potential of mobile phone-type RF exposure in rats,” and that alternatives to the ICNIRP “recommend[ed] exposure limits for RF radiation based on thermal effects” are inconclusive [3]. These statements reflect ideological support for ICNIRP’s thermal-only mechanism of adverse effects and its repeated dismissal of the validity of the NTP carcinogenicity studies (e.g [12]). The project’s principal investigator is a member of ICNIRP, and the advisory committee that provided oversight and guidance throughout this project was heavily represented by current and past members of ICNIRP, suggesting a strong influence of ICNIRP in the design and interpretation of these studies.

In conclusion, methodological shortcomings due to the design choices in the Japan–Korea studies, specifically the restriction to a single exposure group of 4 W/kg of CDMA-modulated RFR and reduced statistical power, systematically biased the study toward null results and eliminated the possibility of detecting a positive trend. Consequently, these findings cannot be used to reasonably refute the peer-reviewed evidence of toxicity and carcinogenicity of CDMA- and GSM-modulated RFR in the NTP studies, nor to reinforce ICNIRP’s thermal-based exposure limits. It is also important to note that the increases in schwannomas and gliomas reported in experimental studies of RF-EMF are of the same tumor types (glioma and vestibular schwannoma) that were increased in epidemiological studies in which brain cancer risk was increased among heavy users of mobile phones [13]. The example described in this commentary demonstrates how limited and divergent experimental designs and potential biases in the interpretation of experimental carcinogenicity results can lead to conflicting views on the health effects of RFR.

Open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5

--

The International Collaborative Animal Study of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity

Imaida K, Kawabe M, Wang J, Yokohira M, Imai N, Han K-H, Kim Y-B, Jeon SB, Kim HY, Ahn YH.The International Collaborative Animal Study of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity: The Japanese Study. Toxicol Sci. 2026. 1/13/26. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfag002.

Abstract

The potential carcinogenic and genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, particularly those emitted by mobile communication systems, have raised public health concerns. A previous study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program suggested increased incidences of gliomas and cardiac schwannomas in rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation. To evaluate these findings, an international collaborative study was initiated between Japan and Korea.

Male Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD® rats were exposed to 900 MHz CDMA-modulated RF-EMFs at a whole-body specific absorption rate of 4 W/kg for 18 hours and 20 minutes daily over two years. The study included a 28-day preliminary toxicity study, genotoxicity assays (alkaline comet and micronucleus tests), and a two-year carcinogenicity assessment. All procedures followed OECD guidelines and Good Laboratory Practice. No statistically significant increases in the incidences of neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions were found in any major organ, including the brain, heart, and adrenal glands. Genotoxicity assays revealed no evidence of DNA damage or chromosomal aberrations in RF-exposed rats. A higher survival rate in the RF-exposed group, likely due to lower body weight and food consumption, was observed.

This study performed in Japan, jointly planned and executed by Japan and Korea, provides strong evidence that long-term exposure to 900 MHz RF-EMFs did not produce reproducible carcinogenic or genotoxic effects in male rats. Combined with data from the Korean counterpart study, these results are expected to contribute to future international assessments of the carcinogenic potential of electromagnetic radiation.

Open access: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/209/3/kfag002/8423504

--

The International Collaborative Animal Study of The Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: The Korean Study

Kim HS, Han KH, Kim YB, Jeon SB, Lee AK, Moon JI, Choi HD, Imaida K, Yokohira M, Kawabe M, Imai N, Wang J, Ahn YH. The International Collaborative Animal Study of The Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: The Korean Study. Toxicol Sci. 2026 Jan 16:kfag001. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfag001. 

Abstract

A chronic bioassay investigating radiofrequency (RF) carcinogenicity, intentionally designed to be conducted simultaneously in Korea and Japan, using the same research protocol and experimental environment. The study aimed to assess the potential carcinogenicity of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)-modulated 900 MHz RF signals at a whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg, which is the reference level of the international human safety guideline, and to verify the key findings from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study at that SAR level. Two reverberation chamber systems were used for RF exposures, and the same study protocols were followed. Male Harlan Sprague-Dawley (Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD®) rats were randomly assigned to cage-control, sham-exposed, or RF-exposed groups. The exposure started on gestational day 5 and lasted for 18 hours and 20 minutes each day, with 10-minute on/off cycles. The project included a 28-day toxicity study, a 2-year carcinogenicity study, and a 14-week genotoxicity test. Histopathological evaluations were conducted in a partially blinded manner. The results were independently analyzed and submitted separately based on each country's research findings. In the Korean study, no statistically significant changes in tumor incidence or survival rates were observed. No significant RF-related effects were detected in the heart, brain, or adrenal glands. No changes in body temperature. Genotoxicity tests showed no evidence of DNA damage or mutation. In conclusion, the Korean part found that long-term exposure to CDMA-modulated 900 MHz RF was neither carcinogenic nor genotoxic at a SAR of 4 W/kg in male rats.

Open access: https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/209/3/kfag001/8428133

--

An International Collaborative Animal Study of the Carcinogenicity of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: Considerations for Preparation of a Global Project

Ahn YH, Imaida K, Kim YB, Han KH, Pack JK, Kim N, Jeon SB, Lee AK, Choi HD, Wang J, Kawabe M, Kim HS. An International Collaborative Animal Study of the Carcinogenicity of Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation: Considerations for Preparation of a Global Project. Bioelectromagnetics. 2022 May;43(4):218-224. doi: 10.1002/bem.22407. 

Abstract

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) was classified as a "possible" human carcinogen in 2011, which caused great public concern. A carcinogenicity study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found Code Division Multiple Access-and Global System for Mobile Communications-modulated mobile phone RFR to be carcinogenic to the brain and heart of male rats. As part of an investigation of mobile phone carcinogenesis, and to verify the NTP study results, a 5-year collaborative animal project was started in Korea and Japan in 2019. An international animal study of this type has two prerequisites: use of the same study protocol and the same RF-exposure system. This article discusses our experience in the design of this global study on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs).

Open access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.22407

--

Saturday, August 1, 2026

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)



Flawed "Validation" Studies Do Not Negate Established Evidence 
That Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer in Rats

Summary: A new paper published in Environmental Health finds that the Japanese and Korean cell phone radiation cancer studies do not prove cell phone safety, as they were underpowered and used too few exposure doses to legitimately challenge the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s landmark findings of increased cancer from long-term cell phone radiation exposure. Long-overdue policy changes to reduce public exposure are urgently needed.

A new peer reviewed paper published in the journal Environmental Health states that two industry-linked “validation” studies from Japan and Korea published in 2026, designed to verify the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) finding that cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation causes cancer in rats, were so underpowered and narrowly designed such that they could never have confirmed or refuted the original results, regardless of the outcome. The authors state that these “validation” studies should not comfort the public when it comes to the safety of cell phones and other wireless devices.

The paper “Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: A commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation,” authored by Ronald L. Melnick (formerly of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), Joel M. Moskowitz (University of California, Berkeley), and Paul Héroux (McGill University) on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), examines the design and interpretation of the Japan and Korea studies against long-standing scientific and regulatory standards for animal carcinogenicity testing.

Background

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based largely on results from human epidemiological studies. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued the final report of their $30 million animal studies concluding there is “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to cell phone (RF) radiation for two years developed malignant heart schwannomas, a rare tumor, along with “some evidence” of brain gliomas and adrenal tumors. The NTP study was designed to provide greater sensitivity than international guidelines for rigorous cancer-testing.

A study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute in 2018 reported increased tumors similar to those observed in the NTP. These new animal cancer findings, along with additional human studies, prompted the WHO/IARC advisory group to repeatedly recommend a new evaluation of the scientific evidence on the carcinogenicity of wireless radiation. Many scientists with expertise in environmental carcinogenicity then published their conclusion that the current evidence is now consistent with IARC criteria for the classification of wireless RF radiation as a “probable human carcinogen”  (IARC Group 2A), or even  “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

However, after the NTP study was released, new animal studies were launched in Japan and Korea, under an “International Validation Project,” aiming to test whether the NTP’s findings were reproducible. Their results, separately published in 2026, concluded that long-term RF radiation exposure did not produce reproducible carcinogenic or genotoxic effects.

However, according to the new paper, the Japanese and Korean animal studies did not replicate the NTP study and had several deficiencies, including:

  • Severely Reduced Statistical Power: The follow-up studies used only 70 animals per group, compared to 90 per group in the NTP study. Power calculations indicate that detecting a significant response for rare tumors at the lower exposure level used in those studies would require many more animals per group.
  • Omission of High-Dose Groups: The follow-up studies tested only a single exposure level (4 W/kg) and dropped the NTP’s highest exposure level (6 W/kg), where significant carcinogenic effects were most statistically pronounced.
  • Violation of FDA and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines: Testing guidelines by these groups require at least three different doses plus a control group to conduct a critical dose-response trend analysis. Single-dose studies eliminate the ability to detect dose-dependent trends.
  • Overlooked Signals of Harm: Despite being underpowered, the Korean study actually observed a 3% incidence rate of heart schwannomas in exposed rats (versus 0% in controls), matching the tumor rate observed at 3 W/kg in the NTP study, yet the researchers surprisingly dismissed the finding.
  • Prominent Role of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and Industry-Friendly Advisors: The project’s principal investigator was an ICNIRP member, and the advisory committee overseeing the research was heavily composed of current and former ICNIRP members, several of whom have served as industry consultants. The Japan/Korea studies were aimed at protecting ICNIRP’s current cell phone radiation safety limits rather than at documenting radiation risks.

The authors of the new analysis conclude that the Japan and Korea studies’ conclusion of “no reproducible carcinogenic potential” of cell phone radiation is simply not supported by the studies’ design and, in the case of the Korean study, is undercut by its own data. Therefore, the Japan and Korea studies do not alter the National Toxicology Program’s finding of “clear evidence” of cancer.

In a paper published earlier this year, Melnick and Moskowitz concluded that, based on the NTP cancer findings, current FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits would need to be at least 200 times lower to protect against cancer risk from 8 hours of daily exposure. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields is calling on governments to implement policies that reduce public exposure and inform cell phone users on how to minimize their risk.

Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, lead author and retired toxicologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who led the design of the original NTP radiofrequency radiation studies:

“The Japan and Korea studies cannot be used as proof of safety. To properly verify a study that found clear evidence of rare tumors like heart schwannomas, follow-up research must be designed with equal or greater sensitivity. By dropping the highest exposure level, testing only a single dose, and using fewer animals, these follow-up underpowered studies failed to meet basic FDA and OECD testing guidelines and were systematically biased toward finding no significant effect. These studies appear to be engineered to come back negative, no matter what the true biology is.

In short, the Japan and Korea studies cannot be used to invalidate the National Toxicology Program’s peer-reviewed findings of carcinogenicity or to justify the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s thermal-based exposure limits.”

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, whose research focuses on the public health implications of wireless radiation exposure:

“Millions of people carry cell phones against their bodies for hours a day, and children are being exposed over far longer lifetimes than any generation before them. Public health decisions about safety limits should be built on the most rigorous animal evidence available, not on studies constructed in a way that was unlikely to detect harm even if it exists. We cannot allow flawed experimental designs to shield outdated safety guidelines from necessary, health-protective revisions. The scientific evidence on cancer and other biological effects is sufficient to warrant policies to reduce exposure.”

Dr. Paul Héroux, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University:

“These studies did not reproduce the original methodology, exposure assessment, or study conditions. From a biostatistical perspective, testing only 70 animals at a single dose level leaves a study severely underpowered to detect rare carcinogenic events. Without multiple dose groups and adequate sample sizes, finding ‘no statistically significant effect’ is an artifact of poor study design rather than evidence of safety. Importantly, when the NTP and Korean and Japanese studies are considered together, the overall evidence confirms cancer risk.” 

Implications for Public Policy and Public Health

The authors state that governments have a responsibility to protect public health by ensuring that exposure limits are based on the strongest available scientific evidence, not on studies that lack the scientific rigor necessary to detect known hazards. They conclude that the Japanese and Korean follow-up studies cannot be relied upon to dismiss the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s findings or to delay protective action. Before negative validation studies can be interpreted as evidence against the NTP’s findings, they must match or exceed the original study’s design, including the same animal model, exposure regimen, adequate group sizes, multiple exposure levels, and sufficient statistical power. Accordingly, they state that the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and regulatory agencies should base hazard evaluations and public health policies on the strongest available evidence.

ICBE-EMF maintains that current U.S. and ICNIRP exposure limits for cell phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and cell towers are not adequately protective because a substantial body of research reports cancer and other biological effects, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, neurological effects, and reproductive harm. The Commission calls on governments to halt the rollout of new wireless technologies until independent safety assessments are completed and to adopt policies that reduce RF radiation exposure risks.

Scientific reference:

Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M., Héroux, P. et al. Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation. Environ Health 25, 66 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5

Read the Scientific Paper

About the ICBE-EMF 

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including RF radiation. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. 

https://icbe-emf.org/flawed-validation-studies-do-not-negate-the-established-evidence-that-cell-phone-radiation-causes-cancer-in-rats-scientists-conclude/

Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation

Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM, Héroux P, on behalf of International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis: a commentary on design and methodological deficiencies in the follow-up validation studies on radiofrequency radiation. Environ Health 25, 66 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5.

Abstract

Conflicting views in experimental carcinogenesis often arise due to differences in study design among reported studies. For carcinogenicity assessments, regulatory agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and intergovernmental advisory organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), specify the use of at least three dose levels plus control group for trend analyses, with the highest dose inducing a measurable toxic response. In addition, there needs to be a sufficient number of animals per group to have adequate power to detect a true carcinogenic effect. Departure from such recommendations can weaken the interpretations of study results. We examine here two recent carcinogenicity studies from Japan and Korea that were conducted following the positive carcinogenicity study of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in experimental animals by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The Japan and Korea follow-up studies used fewer animals per group, a single RFR exposure group, and a lower exposure level than the NTP study. Not surprisingly, while the NTP study revealed the carcinogenicity of RFR, the Japanese and Korean studies, which had reduced statistical power compared to the NTP study, issued conclusions conflicting with those of the more substantial NTP study on the health effects of RFR. In general, carcinogenicity studies with weaker doses, fewer exposure groups, and reduced statistical power should not be used to test the validity of more robust studies.

Excerpt

Despite the numerous limitations in their study design, the authors of the Japan-Korea studies concluded there is “no reproducible carcinogenic potential of mobile phone-type RF exposure in rats,” and that alternatives to the ICNIRP “recommend[ed] exposure limits for RF radiation based on thermal effects” are inconclusive [3]. These statements reflect ideological support for ICNIRP’s thermal-only mechanism of adverse effects and its repeated dismissal of the validity of the NTP carcinogenicity studies (e.g [12]). The project’s principal investigator is a member of ICNIRP, and the advisory committee that provided oversight and guidance throughout this project was heavily represented by current and past members of ICNIRP, suggesting a strong influence of ICNIRP in the design and interpretation of these studies.

In conclusion, methodological shortcomings due to the design choices in the Japan–Korea studies, specifically the restriction to a single exposure group of 4 W/kg of CDMA-modulated RFR and reduced statistical power, systematically biased the study toward null results and eliminated the possibility of detecting a positive trend. Consequently, these findings cannot be used to reasonably refute the peer-reviewed evidence of toxicity and carcinogenicity of CDMA- and GSM-modulated RFR in the NTP studies, nor to reinforce ICNIRP’s thermal-based exposure limits. It is also important to note that the increases in schwannomas and gliomas reported in experimental studies of RF-EMF are of the same tumor types (glioma and vestibular schwannoma) that were increased in epidemiological studies in which brain cancer risk was increased among heavy users of mobile phones [13]. The example described in this commentary demonstrates how limited and divergent experimental designs and potential biases in the interpretation of experimental carcinogenicity results can lead to conflicting views on the health effects of RFR.

Open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01324-5

--

"Wireless Radiation and Public Health: What the WHO Reviews Reveal and Don't"

ICBE-EMF Press Conference Oct 7, 2025, YouTube video (1:06:09)

The WHO is investigating the health effects of cell tower and cell phone wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) held a press conference to announce the publication of its latest peer-reviewed paper in the journal Environmental Health entitled, “The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety.” 

Link to the open access paper https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com 

The paper identifies serious methodological flaws in the World Health Organization (WHO)-commissioned reviews that assessed the health impacts of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from wireless technology including cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi networks and 5G. ICBE-EMF concluded based on its substantial, collective, multidisciplinary expertise in this field, that the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews are simply inadequate to conclude that wireless radiation is safe or that current ICNIRP/FCC exposure limits are reliable. 

Read the full press release on the paper at https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-review. 

Featured Speakers 
  • Ron Melnick Ph.D.: Past Chair, ICBE-EMF; Senior Advisor; former Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program (NTP), NIEHS
  • Joel Moskowitz Ph.D.: ICBE-EMF Commissioner; Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley 
  • Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe: ICBE-EMF Special Expert; physician; founder, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment
  • Professor John Frank MD: ICBE-EMF Chairperson; physician and epidemiologist, University of Edinburgh; Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
  • Elizabeth Kelley, MA: ICBE-EMF Managing Director; President of the Board, Electromagnetic Safety Alliance 
ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ 

Sign up for the ICBE-EMF Mailing list: https://mailchi.mp/icbe-emf/mailing-list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jjt1EZ2wYQ

--

Oct 1, 2025

Media Contact:
Joel Moskowitz Ph.D.
Email: jmm@berkeley.edu

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Challenges WHO-Commissioned Reviews on Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation Safety

 

The safety of wireless technology is not assured, scientists state

 

BERKELEY, CA October 2, 2025 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) today announced the online publication of its latest paper, "The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety," in the journal Environmental Health. The paper critically examines the World Health Organization (WHO)-commissioned systematic reviews on the health effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, identifying significant flaws that undermine their conclusions regarding safety.

 

RF radiation, a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic field (EMF), is emitted by ubiquitous wireless devices and telecommunications infrastructure, including cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, and building-mounted antennas. While acknowledging the importance of the WHO's objective to evaluate the literature on RF radiation and adverse health effects, the ICBE-EMF paper asserts that methodological weaknesses and potential biases compromise the reliability of the published reviews.

 

Dr. John Frank, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, and ICBE-EMF Chairperson, stated, "We at ICBE-EMF find, based on our substantial, collective, multidisciplinary expertise in this field, that the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews are simply inadequate to conclude that wireless radiation is safe or that ICNIRP/FCC limits are reliable. Presenting these flawed reviews as evidence of safety for ICNIRP and the FCC's current exposure limits would mislead the public.”

 

The ICBE-EMF will be holding a press conference on October 7, 2025, at 9:00 AM Pacific to present their findings detailed in the publication.


Concerns Over Bias and Flawed Methodology


A central concern highlighted in the ICBE-EMF paper is the extensive involvement of individuals affiliated with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in the production of these WHO-commissioned reviews. ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Program share a common origin and have historically maintained that thermal effects are the only established health risks of RF radiation exposure. Given that ICNIRP's recommended RF radiation exposure limits have been adopted by most countries for the past 30 years, the ICBE-EMF is raising questions regarding potential bias in these reviews and the adequacy of current exposure limits for protecting public health.

 

Dr. Ron Melnick, past Chair of the ICBE-EMF, now Senior Advisor and former senior toxicologist at the National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), elaborated on their findings. "We began reviewing the WHO-commissioned assessments because of our longstanding involvement in this research and the potential influence these reviews could have on future policy decisions," said Dr. Melnick. "We uncovered numerous flaws, including the exclusion of relevant studies, reliance on weak studies, inappropriate combining of studies with vastly different exposure conditions, and undisclosed biases among the authors."

 

Evidence of Harm and Need for Stronger Protections

 

The ICBE-EMF paper specifically notes that the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on cancer and reproductive effects in experimental animals indicated a high certainty of association between RF radiation exposure and increased incidences of heart schwannomas and reduced male fertility. Furthermore, these reviews provided quantitative data that, according to the ICBE-EMF, could and should be used to reduce exposure limits and improve protection for humans.  

 

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, further emphasized the analytical weaknesses. "Eleven of the twelve WHO-sponsored systematic reviews relied upon multiple quantitative analyses (meta-analyses) of primary studies on RF radiation health effects. In most instances, we found that these analyses had serious methodological weaknesses that undermined interpretation of the results and invalidated the authors’ conclusions, which were based upon these results," stated Dr. Moskowitz.

 

The ICBE-EMF has previously published work demonstrating how scientific evidence over the past three decades invalidates many assumptions underlying ICNIRP's RF radiation exposure limits. With mounting scientific evidence and widespread, increasing population exposure to RF radiation, the ICBE-EMF stresses the urgent need to reduce exposures and strengthen safety limits, particularly for vulnerable populations such as pregnant individuals, children, and those with chronic health conditions, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

 

The ICBE-EMF concludes that the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews do not provide proof of safety for cell phones or other wireless communication devices, nor do they justify the RF radiation exposure limits currently specified in ICNIRP’s guidelines. The organization calls for urgently needed, science-based public health guidelines that are genuinely protective of human health and the environment.

  

PRESS CONFERENCE

 

Wireless Radiation and Public Health: What the WHO Reviews Reveal—and Don’t 

Scientists Challenge WHO-Commissioned Reviews on Wireless Radiation Safety

 

Date: October 7, 2025

Time: 9:00 AM Pacific Time (PT)
Zoom Press Conference: Registration Link:

 

Featured Speakers


·  Dr. John Frank:  ICBE-EMF Chairperson; physician and epidemiologist, University of Edinburgh; Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

·  Dr. Ron Melnick: Past Chair, ICBE-EMF; Senior Advisor; former Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program (NTP), NIEHS

·  Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, BM (UK Medical Degree) : ICBE-EMF Special Expert; physician; founder, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment

·  Dr. Joel Moskowitz: ICBE-EMF Commissioner; Director, Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley

·  Elizabeth Kelley, MA: ICBE-EMF Managing Director; President of the Board, Electromagnetic Safety Alliance

 

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF):

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. ICBE-EMF.org

Join the ICBE-EMF mailing list to stay updated with our latest scientific publications and news.

--

The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety

Melnick RL, Moskowitz JM, Héroux P, Mallery-Blythe E, McCredden JE, Herbert M, Hardell L, Phillips A, Belpoggi F, Frank JW, Scarato T, Kelley E, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environ Health 24, 70 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4.

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned 12 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The health outcomes selected for those reviews (cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects) were based on a WHO-conducted international survey. The SR of the studies of cancer in laboratory animal studies was the only one that did not include a MA, because those authors considered it inappropriate due to methodological differences among the available studies, including differences in exposure characteristics (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization), experimental parameters (hours/day of exposure, duration of exposure, exposure systems), and different biological models. MAs in all the other SRs suffered from relatively few primary studies available for each MA (sometimes due to excessive subgrouping), exclusion of relevant studies, weaknesses in many of the included primary studies, lack of a framework for analyzing complex processes such as those involved in cognitive functions, and/or high between-study heterogeneity. Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. However, the animal cancer SR, which was rated as “high certainty of evidence” for heart schwannomas and “moderate certainty of evidence” for brain gliomas, provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk. The multiple and significant dose-related adverse effects found in the SRs on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcome should also serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human reproductive risks. The report of harmful effects (e.g., cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) at doses below the adverse health effect threshold claimed by ICNIRP demonstrates that current exposure limits to RF-EMF, which were established by applying arbitrary uncertainty factors to their putative adverse threshold dose, lack scientific credibility.

Open access paper: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4

Supplementary Material 1. "Examples of Working Group Authors’ Ties to Industry"

Supplementary Material 2. "The Meta-Analyses in the WHO RF-EMF Systematic Reviews Yielded Unreliable Results"



--

April 27, 2025

New WHO-Funded Study Reports High Certainty of the Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer in Animals

Scientific Experts Urge the FCC to Establish Science-Based Exposure Limits to Address Wireless Health Risks

Media Contact: communications@icbe-emf.org

Press Release April 27, 2025

Environment International has published a new systematic review, partially funded by the World Health Organization, concluding that there is high certainty of the evidence linking cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation to two types of cancer in animals. In response, leading scientists from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) are calling for immediate policy action to protect public health and the environment, warning that further delay could have serious consequences amid the global surge in the use of wireless communication devices.

What the Review Found

A new systematic review of 52 animal studies, “Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure on Cancer in Laboratory Animal Studies” by Mevissen et al. (2025), concluded there is high certainty of the evidence linking RF radiation exposure to two types of tumors: gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. Notably, the same types of tumors have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.  

The review also found moderate certainty of evidence of an increased risk of rare tumors, such as pheochromocytomas in the adrenal glands and hepatoblastomas in the liver. Additionally, some studies indicated a possible association with lymphomas, although the findings were inconsistent.

ICBE-EMF highlights that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency radiation (RF-EMF) as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen, noting limited animal evidence. Since then, major animal studies — including those by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute — have found that RF radiation exposure causes cancer in rats. 

The new WHO-funded review, concluding there is “high certainty” animal evidence of cancer causation, reinforces calls for IARC to urgently reevaluate the cancer classification of RF radiation.

Given this high level of certainty, government policymakers worldwide should immediately move to revise their RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment. 

Statements by Experts of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

“The evidence is now clear —cell phone radiation can cause cancer in animals in concordance with the tumor types identified in human studies of mobile phone users. As animal studies are essential for predicting cancer risk in humans, governments should develop science-based safety standards to protect human health. The conclusion of the study commissioned by the WHO shows that the long-standing assumption current government limits are based on  — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong” stated Ron Melnick, PhD, Chair of the ICBE-EMF and former senior toxicologist and Director of Special Programs at the National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

“The preponderance of the research published since 1996 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of modulated or pulsed wireless RF radiation. Given the widespread global usage of wireless among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease will have broad implications for public health,” stated Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, also an ICBE-EMF member.

“To protect public health and the environment, exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation must be significantly reduced,” said Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Director of ICBE-EMF. She referenced the EMF Scientist Appeal now signed by 267 scientists from 45 nations. “Hundreds of scientists worldwide agree that current exposure limits are outdated and do not adequately protect against health risks.”

ICBE-EMF emphasizes that governments must act immediately to strengthen regulatory limits on wireless radiation to protect public health. Wildlife exposures must be mitigated. Current exposure standards, based on outdated assumptions, do not reflect the scientific evidence linking RF radiation to cancer and other health effects.

ICBE-EMF also highlights practical steps the public can take to reduce exposure — such as using speakerphone or wired headsets, keeping devices away from the body, and limiting wireless use among children — but stresses that personal actions are not a substitute for government-enforced safety standards. Stronger, science-based regulations are urgently needed to address the widespread and increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

About the ICBE-EMF 

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including wireless RF radiation. Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi and cell towers emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation. 

ICBE-EMF recently published major scientific papers concluding that current government safety limits for wireless radiation are not protective of public health and highlighting engineering solutions that could dramatically reduce radiation emissions from cell phones. 

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and environment. icbe-emf.org

Video of Dr. Ronald Melnick on the Cell Phone Cancer Study 

​https://icbe-emf.org/who-funded-study-reports-high-certainty-of-the-evidence-linking-cell-phone-radiation-to-cancer-in-animals/

--

July 29, 2024

ICBE-EMF issues statement on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

--

July 15, 2024

ICBE-EMF finds serious problems with WHO-Commissioned review of human observational studies 
on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency EMFs
TUCSON, AZ – July 15, 2024 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) documented serious problems with a WHO-commissioned review of research on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in a commentary published today in the journal Reviews on Environmental Health.
Our commentary, “A critical appraisal of the WHO 2024 systematic review of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on tinnitus, migraine/headache, and non-specific symptoms,” discusses major problems with a recent review of human observational studies on this topic by Röösli and colleagues (2024) that was published in the journal Environment International.
We call for a retraction of this paper. 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 – largely due to the very small number and low methodological quality of the relevant primary studies to date, and the fundamental inappropriateness of meta-analysis for the handful of very heterogeneous primary studies identified for each of the analyzed exposure/outcome combinations.
Furthermore, the ICBE-EMF calls for 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.
The ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals who are involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz. The organization makes recommendations that include and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications.
Frank J, Melnick R, Moskowitz J, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). 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. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0069. 


Also see: https://www.saferemr.com/2021/09/who-radiofrequency-emf-health-risk.html

--

June 26, 2024

ICBE-EMF exposes major flaws in COSMOS cell phone brain tumor risk study in journal letter published today

Contacts:
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, jmm@berkeley.edu
Ronald Melnick, PhD, ronmelnick@gmail.com

New peer-reviewed letter presents 
scientific case for retraction of conclusions
of COSMOS brain tumor risk study.

TUCSON, AZ – June 26, 2024 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) exposed major flaws with the COSMOS study of brain tumor risk from cell phone use in a letter to the editor published today in the journal Environment International, "COSMOS: A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use."

The letter discusses serious problems with a recent COSMOS paper that provided interim results about brain tumor risk from mobile phone use. The letter calls for a retraction of the paper's conclusions and demands that the data set be made available to independent investigators who have no industry ties. Excerpts from the letter appear below.

The response to our letter by the authors of the COSMOS paper failed to adequately address our concerns.

COSMOS (“Cohort Study on Mobile Phone Use and Health”) is a 20-30-year cohort study investigating the possible health effects of long-term use of mobile phones and other wireless technologies. The study enrolled over 290,000 mobile phone users from six European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). 

The ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors and related professionals who are involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz. The organization makes recommendations that include and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications.

Also see: https://www.saferemr.com/2024/06/COSMOS.html


--

Sep 6, 2023

"Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Sources: 
Are Safety Limits Safe?

The recordings and slides from the following webinar are now available.


David Gee: “Wireless Radiation; An Emerging Hazard 1972-2003”

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe: “Non-Ionizing Radiation Health Effects; Vulnerable Populations; Critical Role of Medical Doctor”

Dr. Kent Chamberlin:  "Towards the Better Protection of People and Planet from Wireless Radiation; Work of the New Hampshire Commission and the ICBE-EMF"

Dr. James C. Lin: “A Critique of RF Exposure Limits and Recommendations for the Better Protection of Workers and the Public"

​Dr. John Frank: “Reflections and Key Questions”

​To view the videos and ​download the slides from this webinar: 


--

April 4, 2023



NEWS RELEASE

Simple engineering fixes could dramatically reduce cellphone radiation, scientists say

Industry will now have to start competing on safety

ICBE-EMF, Tucson, AZ, April 4, 2023 -- Six simple engineering fixes could dramatically reduce radiation emitted by cellphones according to a group of scientists. The fixes are easy to implement, and in one case the fix relies on technology already patented by the industry.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) reported its findings today in an open access, peer-reviewed article, "Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions," published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

“Given the growing evidence of the health effects of radiation from cellphones and cell towers, I believe the wireless industry is going to have to start competing on safety,” said Joel Moskowitz, one of the authors who is also director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

“With the proliferation of online advice and consultants helping people reduce their exposures, the concern about the safety of cellphones and other wireless devices has moved into the mainstream,” Moskowitz added.

“We will undoubtedly hear from many in the industry that a move toward safer cellphones and other wireless devices will be too costly and unnecessary,” Moskowitz said. “But carmakers said the same thing when the public demanded safer cars and the government required them. Today, those same carmakers compete on safety.”

“This competition for safety can move forward without a change in the current government standards,” Moskowitz explained. “Ultimately, I believe governments around the world will be playing catch-up with industry and consumers.”

“The six engineering solutions outlined in this paper provide a significant move forward in cellphone safety,” said Elizabeth Kelley, one of the authors of the paper and managing director of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. “The scientists and engineers proposing them stand ready to assist the cellphone industry with implementing them as soon as is practical.”

Kelley added, “Some of the proposed solutions are just common sense. Using Wi-Fi to make cellphone calls whenever feasible dramatically reduces radiation emissions from the phone.” And, when a cellphone is sitting on the nightstand while the user is sleeping, it doesn’t need to communicate constantly with a cell tower to relay its location. “Why not shut down these transmissions—which cause frequent radiation emissions—when our phones are stationary such as when they sitting on a bedside table as we sleep or on our desk next to us as we work?”

Kelley said, “These common-sense changes can quickly and dramatically reduce radiation exposure from cellphones. Implementing them will create a healthier environment for all of us while still allowing us to stay connected to others and to the information we need daily.”

The paper also examines the history behind the current cellphone emissions standards and finds a trail of dated assumptions and poorly designed experiments and tests that don’t reflect how people use cellphones today.

Paul Héroux, the first author of this paper and a professor in the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University in Montreal, said the team of scientists and engineers who worked on the paper “identified seven blind spots in the methods and experiments upon which our current cellphone radiation emission standards and guidelines are based. These blind spots call into serious question the validity of those standards."


For example, tests to gauge the hazards of wireless radiation upon which our current standards rest only used exposures lasting between 40 and 60 minutes. Such exposures “can hardly be said to be representative of the 24/7 chronic exposures which all of us are and will be subject to for the rest of our lives.”

Héroux added, “Combined, these seven blind spots tell us that our current cellphone emissions standards cannot be trusted. We cannot and should not tell the public that we know cellphones are safe.”

In his written statement Héroux recommends that two things be done right away:

  • Test cellphones “using test designs that represent actual use and that rely on the growing body of research demonstrating biological effects from radiation emitted by cellphones.”
  • “Demand a quantitative health risk assessment of cellphone use and wireless infrastructure. This type of scientific assessment is routinely used by government agencies worldwide. In the United States the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all use quantitative health risk assessments to determine potential human health risks associated with exposure to hazardous agents or activities.”

To download the paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5398



--


Oct 18, 2022 (Updated Nov 2, 2022)

Wireless Technology Not Adequately Assessed for Hazards to Human Health and Environment

New peer-reviewed paper presents scientific case for revision of limits

TUCSON, AZ – October 18, 2022 – The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is challenging the safety of current wireless exposure limits to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and is calling for an independent evaluation.

Published today in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” demonstrates how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have ignored or inappropriately dismissed hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits. The authors argue that the threshold, based on science from the 1980s – before cell phones were ubiquitous -- is wrong, and these exposure limits based on this threshold do not adequately protect workers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public from exposure to the nonionizing radiation from wireless data transmission.

“Many studies have demonstrated oxidative effects associated with exposure to low-intensity RFR, and significant adverse effects including cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, neurological disorders, increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, and sperm damage,” explains Dr. Ronald Melnick, Commission chair and a former senior toxicologist with the U.S. National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “These effects need to be addressed in revised and health-protective exposure guidelines. Furthermore, the assumption that 5G millimeter waves are safe because of limited penetration into the body does not dismiss the need for health effects studies.”

Dr. Lennart Hardell, former professor at Örebro University Hospital in Sweden and author of  more than 100 papers on non-ionizing radiation, added, “Multiple robust human studies of cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors, and these are supported by clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types found in animal studies.”

The Commission believes that an independent evaluation based on the scientific evidence with attention to the knowledge gained over the past 25 years is needed to establish lower exposure limits. The Commission is also calling for health studies to be completed prior to any future deployment of 5G networks.

Elizabeth Kelley, the Commission's managing director, noted that “ICBE-EMF was commissioned by the advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition signed by more than 240 scientists who have published over 2,000 papers on EMF, biology, and health, and that “The commissioners have endorsed the Appeal’s recommendations to protect public and environmental health.”

For background on the paper and its co-authors see:

Media contact: 
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
email to: media.inquiries@icbe-emf.org


Key points
  • ICBE-EMF scientists report that exposure limits for radiofrequency (or wireless) radiation set by ICNIRP and the FCC are based on invalid assumptions and outdated science, and are not protective of human health and wildlife.
  • ICBE-EMF calls for an independent assessment of the effects and risks of radiofrequency radiation based on scientific evidence from peer-reviewed studies conducted over the past 25 years. The aim of such assessment would be to establish health protective exposure standards for workers and the public.
  • The public should be informed of the health risks of wireless radiation and encouraged to take precautions to minimize exposures, especially for children, pregnant women and people who are electromagnetically hypersensitive.
  • ICBE-EMF calls for an immediate moratorium on further rollout of 5G wireless technologies until safety is demonstrated and not simply assumed.
--

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environmental Health. (2022) 21:92. doi.org:10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.

Abstract


In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. 

In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. 

Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. 

Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Open access paper: 


Co-authors:

Ronald L. Melnick: National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (retired), Ron Melnick Consulting LLC, Logan, Utah, USA (corresponding author)
Igor Belyaev: Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia
Carl Blackman: US Environmental Protection Agency (retired), North Carolina, USA
Kent Chamberlin: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, USA
Suleyman Dasdag: Biophysics Department, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Medical School, Turkey
Alvaro DeSalles: Graduate Program on Electrical Engineering (PPGEE), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil 
Claudio Fernandez: Division of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS), Canoas, Brazil
Lennart Hardell: Department of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital (retired), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Orebro, Sweden
Paul Héroux: Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada
Elizabeth Kelley: ICBE-EMF and International EMF Scientist Appeal, and Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Arizona, USA
Kavindra Kesari: Department of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto, University, Espoo, Finland
Don Maisch: EMFacts Consultancy; The Oceanic Radiofrequency, Scientific Advisory Association, Tasmania, Australia
Erica Mallery-Blythe: Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment; British Society of Ecological Medicine; Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, UK
Anthony Miller: Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Professor Emeritus), University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Joel M. Moskowitz: School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Wenjun Sun: School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
Igor Yakymenko: National University of Food Technology, Kyiv Medical University, Ukraine


About the International Commission 

on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields


Founded in 2021, ICBE-EMF was commissioned by the advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Commission is dedicated to ensuring the protection of humans and other species from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation. Our primary purpose is to make recommendations, based on peer-reviewed scientific research, that includes and goes beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines to ensure safety. ICBE-EMF is made up of a multidisciplinary consortium of scientists, doctors, and related professionals who are or have been, involved with research related to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic frequencies up to and including 300 GHz.


==


Selected News Stories


"New Challenge to ICNIRP: Dissident Scientists Seek Tighter Health Limits. Will They Succeed Where Others Failed?" Microwave News, November 1, 2022. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/new-challenge-icnirp


André Fauteux."Hundreds of studies on wireless radiation toxicity 'inappropriately ignored or discounted'." La Maison du 21e Siecle, Oct 18, 2022. https://maisonsaine.ca/english?id=100353. In French: https://maisonsaine.ca/article?id=100352