Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

"Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?" Webinar

Health Hazards of Wireless Technologies: What do we know now?

A webinar by Dr. Joel Moskowitz sponsored by

The Collaborative for Health & Environment

September 25, 2024

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV9Yk99iJdg

Slides: https://bit.ly/RFhazardsslidesCHE09-25-24

In this webinar, Dr. Joel Moskowitz provides a brief overview of selected recent studies on health hazards of wireless technologies. He discussed a meta-analysis of case-control studies of cell phone use and tumor risk, as well as the state of the evidence on tumor risk and other health hazards. He also addressed the World Health Organization's recent efforts to assure the public that wireless radiation exposure is safe by commissioning flawed reviews of the research.

Wireless technologies, including cell phones, wireless internet, and Bluetooth devices, have become ubiquitous in our lives. Most adults in the US own a cell phone, and cell phone use is widespread among children and adolescents. New cell antenna sites are being deployed widely. Wireless technologies and equipment designs also change rapidly.

The preponderance of scientific evidence shows adverse biological and health effects from the radiofrequency (RF) radiation, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs), used and generated by these devices. A number of studies have considered the mechanisms of biological harm from RF radiation, and federal studies have documented increased incidence of certain tumors in laboratory animals associated with RF exposure. Epidemiological studies have found increased risk of certain tumors associated with long-term use of wireless phones.

Dr. Moskowitz has conducted research on disease prevention programs and policies for more than 40 years, most recently focusing on adverse health effects of cell phone and wireless radiation. In 2009 he served as the senior author on a hallmark paper reviewing research on mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk that was updated in 2020. He has disseminated research related to wireless technology, public health, and policy since 2009. He is a member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and an advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 250 scientists who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website is a valuable resource for scientists, journalists, and the public.

https://www.healthandenvironment.org/che-webinars/96771

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV9Yk99iJdg

Slides: https://bit.ly/RFhazardsslidesCHE09-25-24

Cell Phone Use and Salivary Gland Tumor Risk

Since the year 2000, the U.S. has experienced significant increases in the age-adjusted incidence rates of salivary gland cancer along with three other head and neck tumors associated with cell phone use.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of salivary gland cancer significantly increased overall in the U.S. by 0.6% per year from 2000 to 2021. The largest percentage increase has been among children and young adults. The increase in age-adjusted incidence rates for this tumor may be attributable to the chronic effects of mobile phone use in addition to other factors including improvements in screening.

Whereas the size of the population in the U.S. increased 18% between 2000 and 2021, the number of cases of salivary gland cancer reported in the National Cancer Institute's SEER 22 registry increased by 50%.

The tumor incidence rate data are from the SEER 22 Registry which covers 48% of the total U.S. population. The data were age-adjusted to the population in the year 2000 so observed differences over time are not affected by changes in the age composition of the population.

https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/application.html?site=7&data_type=1&graph_type=2&compareBy=age_range&chk_age_range_1=1&chk_age_range_16=16&chk_age_range_62=62&chk_age_range_122=122&chk_age_range_160=160&chk_age_range_166=166&chk_age_range_15=15&rate_type=2&sex=1&race=1&stage=101&advopt_precision=2&advopt_show_ci=on&advopt_show_count=on&hdn_view=1&advopt_show_apc=on&advopt_display=2#resultsRegion1

Reference: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics [Internet]. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute; 2023 Apr 19. [updated: 2023 Nov 16; cited 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/. Data source(s): SEER Incidence Data, November 2022 Submission (1975-2020), SEER 22 registries.

Does Radiofrequency Radiation From Mobile Phones Affect the Formation of Parotid Gland Malignancy? An Experimental Study

Ozergin Coskun Z, Tumkaya L, Yilmaz A, Dursun E, Mercantepe T, Kalkan Y, Ersoz S. Does Radiofrequency Radiation From Mobile Phones Affect the Formation of Parotid Gland Malignancy? An Experimental Study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2024 Sep 27:1455613241287295. doi: 10.1177/01455613241287295.

Abstract

Objectives: The use of mobile phone is increasing around the world. Although it is beneficial in terms of communication, the electromagnetic radiations emitted by mobile phones may cause undesirable biological effects on the human body. In practical use, the tissue with which mobile phones come into most and are closest is the parotid gland. This study investigated the effects of the 1800 MHz electromagnetic field created by a generator on the parotid gland in rats.

Methods: A total of 21 Sprague-Dawley Albino rats were included in the study. The rats were randomly divided into three equal groups. To simulate a mobile phone in conversation mode, the first study group was exposed to an 1800-MHz electromagnetic field for 6 hours a day for 30 days, and the second study group was exposed to an 1800-MHz electromagnetic field for 12 hours a day for 30 days. After 30 days, rats were sacrificed, and histopathological and immunohistochemical methods were used to evaluate the effects on the parotid gland. The total antioxidant level and the total oxidant level were measured biochemically in homogenized parotid tissue.

Results: Histopathological results showed an increase in degeneration in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields for 6 and 12 hours a day, and immunohistochemical analysis showed an increase in the apoptotic index in both study groups (P = .001, P < .001). Intranuclear inclusions was observed during histopathological examination performed by electron microscopy.

Conclusions: This study observed that the 1800 MHz electromagnetic field caused undesirable adverse histopathological and biochemical effects on the parotid gland of rats. Histopathological and biochemical findings were detected with increasing contact and exposure time. This study will lead to other studies on this topic and contribute to the literature by completing other studies.

Excerpts

This study used a generator (Anritsu MG3670 B type, Japan) that produces microwave radiation at 1800 MHz radiofrequency to create exposure in mobile communion. The generator peak power was fixed at 2 W during exposure. In the digital signal generator used in this study, the carrier frequency was 1800 MHz, the modulation frequency was 217 Hz, there was a pulse of 577 µseconds, and the maximum peak power was 2 W. The average specific absorption rate (SAR) of the whole body was 0.117 W/kg. The study was carried out on a total of 21 rats divided in 3 groups (n = 7).

Groups 1, 2, and 3 were exposed to microwave radiation for 0 (control group), 6, and 12 hours, respectively. A generator with an external antenna was placed in the lower middle part of the cages.⁵ The rats in the study group were exposed to microwave radiation for the specified hours in the mobile phone conversation mode....

The parotid tissue has been reported to absorb 40% of the electromagnetic energy emitted by mobile phones on phones held in place. This absorbed energy can cause thermal and nonthermal effects in the parotid tissue.¹⁴ ....

Conclusion

In light of our knowledge of the literature, this is the first study to investigate the effects of an 1800-MHz electromagnetic field on the parotid gland of rats with biochemical tests, immunohistochemically in light microscopy and histopathologically in electron microscopy. This study observed that an 1800-MHz electromagnetic field causes undesirable adverse histopathological and biochemical effects on the parotid gland of rats. Histopathological and biochemical findings were detected with increasing contact and exposure time. This study will lead other studies on this topic and contribute to the literature in this area.

Open access paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01455613241287295

Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development?

A systematic review and meta-analysis

de Siqueira EC, de Souza FTA, Gomez RS, Gomes CC, de Souza RP. Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Pathol Med. 2017 Aug;46(7):480-483. doi: 10.1111/jop.12531.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prior epidemiological studies had examined the association between cell phone use and the development of tumors in the parotid glands. However there is no consensus about the question of whether cell phone use is associated with increased risk of tumors in the parotid glands. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the existing literature about the mean question and to determine their statistical significance.

METHODS: Primary association studies. Papers that associated cell phone use and parotid gland tumors development were included, with no restrictions regarding publication date, language and place of publication. Systematic literature search using PubMed, Scielo and Embase followed by meta-analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Initial screening included 37 articles and three were included in meta-analysis. Using three independent samples including 5087 subjects from retrospective case-control studies, cell phone use seems to be associated with greater odds (1.28, 95%- confidence interval 1.09 - 1.51) to develop salivary gland tumor. Results should be read with caution due to the limited number of studies available and their retrospective design.

http://bit.ly/2gFfUBh

Excerpts

Salivary gland tumors are relatively rare, accounting for 2-5% of all head and neck tumors, being the parotids the most affected salivary gland (6).

We further evaluated the levels of inflammatory cytokines in the saliva produced by the parotids according to self-reported exposure to cell phone, reporting an increase in pro-inflammatory and a decrease of anti-inflammatory cytokine levels in the sample evaluated, suggesting a pro-inflammatory effect of cell phones (8).

Cell phone use was associated with greater odds (increase of 28%) of presence of tumor in the parotid glands (O.R. 1.28 95% C.I. [1.09–1.51] p = 0.0025) (Figure 2).

Primary association studies have reported discordant results (3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15). Possible explanations for conflicting results are differences in study design, genetic background of sampled populations or clinical-epidemiological sample structure. It is important to note that discordant results do not mean that some are incorrect. Tumor manifestation is clearly a multifactorial process whose risk factors are several. Most of the studies have not assessed other risk factors when estimating existence of association.

This is the first systematic review followed by a meta-analysis to evaluate that association. Here, we report usage of cell phone increase, on average, 28% the odds of presenting parotid glands tumors.

Our results need to be read and interpreted with caution due to important limitations that need to be addressed. Although the number of subjects compiled is reasonably large, the number of independent samples is small (n = 3) and results are clearly driven by two of three studies.

Conclusion

Taken together, our results provide evidence of association between cell phone use and parotid tumor although their association presents mild effect.

Histological and histochemical study of the protective role of rosemary extract against harmful effect of cell phone electromagnetic radiation on the parotid glands

Fatma M. Ghoneim, Eetmad A. Arafat. Histological and histochemical study of the protective role of rosemary extract against harmful effect of cell phone electromagnetic radiation on the parotid glands. Acta Histochemica, 118(5):478-485. June 2016.

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are a class of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) that is emitted from mobile phone. It may have hazardous effects on parotid glands. So, we aimed to investigate the histological and histochemical changes of the parotid glands of rats exposed to mobile phone and study the possible protective role of rosemary against its harmful effect. Forty adult male albino rats were used in this study. They were classified into 4 equal groups. Group I (control), group II (control receiving rosemary), group III (mobile phone exposed group) and group IV (mobile exposed, rosemary treated group). Parotid glands were dissected out for histological and histochemical study. Moreover, measurement of oxidative stress markers; malondialdehyde (MDA) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) was done. The results of this study revealed that rosemary has protective effect through improving the histological and histochemical picture of the parotid gland in addition of its antioxidant effect. It could be concluded from the current study, that exposure of parotid gland of rat models to electromagnetic radiation of mobile phone resulted in structural changes at the level of light and electron microscopic examination which could be explained by oxidative stress effect of mobile phone. Rosemary could play a protective role against this harmful effect through its antioxidant activity.

Conclusion

From this study, it could be concluded that exposure of rat models to non-ionizing radiation emitted from mobile phone has hazardous effects on the histology and histochemistry of their parotid glands. Administration of rosemary extract which is a natural antioxidant resulted in a significant improvement. Unfortunately these preliminary results cannot be further extrapolated to humans. Therefore, we should adjust our use for mobile.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128116300678

Also see:

Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces

Why do many scientists around the world believe mobile phone use increases cancer risk?

Overview of Contents

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

For regular updates about electromagnetic radiation safety follow me on

Twitter @berkeleyprc, Facebook or LinkedIn.

Tips to Reduce Your Wireless Radiation Exposure

General

Welcome to EMR Safety

Friday, September 20, 2024

Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use

September 16, 2024 (Updated Sep 20, 2024)

On September 3, the lead author of a new WHO-commissioned systematic review of research on mobile phone use and tumor risk (Karipidis et al., 2024), issued a news release about the study which made the following claims:

"This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health."
"Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health."
"There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing."

These assertions are highly irresponsible. Substantial disagreement has existed for decades among experts who study the effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR). The WHO-sponsored systematic reviews of this scientific literature will exacerbate these disagreements rather than alleviate them due to bias in the selection of review teams by the WHO and in the resulting papers which were recently published in a special issue of Environment International prior to publication of a forthcoming WHO monograph on this topic.

Following are concerns I have regarding the Karipidis et al (2024) study:

All human studies are likely biased toward the null due to exposure misclassification caused by unreliability in study participants' self-reported recall of number of phone calls and call time. Thus, meta-analysis of these studies underestimates the risks of harm.
The cohort studies employed crude assessment of mobile phone use and/or insufficient followup periods, especially the studies of cancer or tumor risk.
In most studies "regular cellphone use" was defined as at least one cellphone call weekly over the past six months. One would hardly expect to find any adverse effects with such little exposure to RFR; yet, the primary focus in Karipidis et al. used this definition of cellphone use.
Call time, even if it were based on cellphone company records, has at best a moderate association with radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure because numerous factors affect exposure to RFR (e.g., proximity of phone to the body during calls; strength of signal from cell tower).
Nonetheless, analyses of cumulative call time (CCT) are more useful to examine than analyses of "regular use." For the CCT analyses, Karipidis et al. employed multiple, meta-regression models which were separately conducted for different types of tumors. The resulting J-shaped curves suggested increased tumor risk with greater celllphone use after about 500 hours of cellphone use, but the confidence intervals were large. Karipidis et al. erroneously concluded there was no evidence of increased tumor risk because the results were not statistically significant; however, their analyses were underpowered because most of the individual studies contained relatively few users with substantial exposure. This was particularly problematic because separate analyses were conducted for each tumor type which limited the number of individual studies in any given analysis.
In contrast to the current study, in a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, my colleagues and I (Choi et al , 2020) employed a more conventional approach to the meta-analysis of the cumulative call time data. We employed data from all tumor types and conducted separate random effects meta-analyses to examine low, medium, and higher-level mobile phone use. We found a significant increased tumor risk in the higher-level mobile phone use analysis which included 8 studies with more than 1000 hours of lifetime mobile phone call time. This analysis found statistically significant evidence for increased risk of tumors in the brain and salivary glands (OR = 1.60 (95% CI = 1.12 , 2.30)). Soon after our study was published, Karipidis and a few of his colleagues published letters to the editor that criticized our meta-analyses; however, we successfully defended our systematic review of the case-control studies in two peer-reviewed letters (see https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html).
In most case-control studies data collection ended by the mid-2000's. Although the results for meningioma were mixed, these studies were largely limited to malignant cases because tumor registries did not begin recording nonmalignant tumors until the mid-2000's. That the age-adjusted incidence of the most common brain tumor, nonmalignant meningioma, has increased substantially in the past two decades should be of great concern; yet, little attention has focused on the factors contributing to this trend.
Most human research to date has focused on either cell phones or cell towers and ignored other sources of exposure (e.g., use of cordless phones or personal wireless devices) resulting in misclassification of individuals' overall RFR exposure.
The Karipidis et al. review relied heavily on the Interphone studies which suffered from substantial selection bias; yet, judged these studies to be low risk of bias, and ignored the correction for selection bias in the pooled Interphone study which doubled the glioma risk estimate for mobile phone use > 1640 hours from OR = 1.40 (95% CI = 1.03, 1.89) in the main body of paper to 1.82 (1.15, 2.89) in Appendix 2.
The justification in Karipidis et al. for excluding study results based on tumor location and laterality was inadequate. Meta-analyses of these results provide significant evidence of increased tumor risk with greater amounts of mobile phone use for brain tumors in the temporal lobe and ipsilateral tumors.
The risk of bias assessment in Karipidis et al. may have been applied in a biased manner to the Hardell studies. Although we used different risk of bias rating criteria, we found in 2009 and again in 2020 the Hardell studies to be stronger methodologically than most other case-control studies.
Karipidis et al. only examined human studies of mobile phone use, most of which likely underestimate the risk of cancer and nonmalignant tumors. They did not address the considerable evidence base of animal and mechanistic studies--the preponderance of which found oxidative effects, DNA damage and/or carcinogenicity from RFR exposure.

Limits on the generalizability of most human studies to date on mobile phone use and tumor risk:

Since most case-control data were collected in the early 2000's and there is a long latency for detection of solid tumors, most studies primarily assessed the effects of GSM (2G) cellphone radiation, the most commonly used cellular technology in Europe where most of the research has been conducted. So little is known about the long-term effects of exposure to subsequent generations of cellular technology.
With the introduction of the smartphone in the mid-2000's, cellphone technology has changed substantially. The phone's cellular transmission antenna was moved from the top to the bottom of the phone exposing the lower head and neck to the greatest radiation instead of the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain. This may increase the risk for tumors of the thyroid and salivary glands.
How cellphones are used has changed over time. More texting, greater use of wired and wireless headsets may have lowered RFR exposure to the head. However, research suggests that exposure to low-intensity RFR may open the blood-brain barrier, exposing the brain to toxic chemicals in the body's circulatory system. The effects of cellphone radiation on a specific organ may depend on the carrier frequency, pulsing and modulation of the signal and is likely non-linear with regard to intensity of the exposure.
Cell tower density has increased over time lowering RFR exposure from cellphones. However, with the introduction of "small cells," the proximity of base stations to users increased causing increased full-body 24-7 RFR exposure from towers.
5G employs different carrier frequencies (including, but not limited to, millimeter waves) and new features including massive MIMO and beamforming that cause brief, intense peak RFR exposures that exceed exposure limits (which are based on time-averaged exposures). Some research suggests that peak exposures are better predictors of harm than averaged exposures. Thus, 5G may pose greater health risks than its predecessors. A comprehensive program of research is essential but funding to study RFR effects has been quite limited. In fact, the U.S. has been grossly negligent in failing to support the research needed to develop safe RFR exposure limits for almost three decades.

In sum, this review suffered from numerous problems. The authors did not adequately deal with heterogeneity, i.e., differences in the original studies’ methods or results. They ignored the fact that most of the original studies had little power to detect effects due to use of crude measures of exposure and/or inadequate followup time. Tumors can require several decades to be diagnosed.

The only informative results in Karipidis et al. (2024) were the cumulative call time analyses which found that after about 500 hours of cellphone use, the risk of glioma and meningioma increased with call time. However, these results were not statistically significant because the original studies had relatively few users with substantial call time.

In contrast, in our 2020 review paper, we combined studies of different tumor types and found significantly increased risk for tumors in the brain and salivary glands after 1,000 hours of cumulative call time (OR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.30).

Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman attacks WHO-commissioned review that claims no cellphone-cancer link

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev, Sept 11, 2024

(Dr. Grigoriev, one of the world's leading experts, emailed me this message regarding the Karipidis et al. (2024) review and gave me permission to post it.)

A group of little-known scientists have claimed responsibility for all cases of cancer associated with exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These scientists claim that possible, probable, and proven cancer from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields does not exist and never can exist. Thus, responsibility for misleading consumers, industry, and healthcare systems lies with several specific authors.

They made this conclusion based on an analysis of other people's articles, selected using a methodology not developed by them, using analysis criteria that they also did not develop. These scientists themselves are not known for their affiliation with scientific schools studying the biomedical effects of electromagnetism, their fundamental work in the field of biological effects of electromagnetic fields and hygiene is unknown. For an unknown reason, the scientists speak on behalf of the World Health Organization, whose employees remain silent and, in principle, do not have the authority (and competence) to make such categorical conclusions. As is well known, science has no categorical judgments, even geometry from the obvious Euclidean has become non-Euclidean, the theory of relativity has become relative. We do not discover "laws of nature", but only generalize what is known. The physical nature of the electromagnetic field has been and remains a subject of discussion, as well as human nature and the role of natural electromagnetism and electricity in it.

The discussion of the carcinogenic potential of radio frequencies has become one of the topics of the international electromagnetic project after 1996, and we have repeatedly discussed this issue with the participants of the WHO project. I have been directly involved in discussions since 1997. Every specialist involved in experimental work using several species of animals, with volunteers, with hygiene and epidemiology understands how dangerous it is to make a categorical judgment "this exists" or "this does not exist". We all need to be very careful when meeting the statements of such authors who "know the answer" in such a complex area for research as the bioeffects of the electromagnetic field.

Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev

Dr. Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D.(radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionizing radiation)

Chairman, Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

Member of the Board, Scientific Council for Radiobiology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Chairman, Non-Ionizing Radiation Section, Russian National Radiobiological Society

Chief Expert of the State Commission on Sanitary Rules (retired)

Member of the IAC WHO EMF Int Project - now WHO Non-ionizing Project (since 2004)

Member of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs

during 2020–2024

September 11, 2024

"Old Wine in New Bottles: Decoding New WHO–ICNIRP Cancer Review; Game Over? Likely Not," Microwave News, Sep 11, 2024. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/old-wine-new-bottles

Microwave News reports on the 20-year history behind the ICNIRP's efforts to convince the scientific community and the public that cellphone radiation cannot cause cancer and the WHO's conflicted relationship with the ICNIRP.

"The fact is that there’s very little new here. The same people have been making similar claims for some 20 years. This is only their latest gambit to make them stick."

"In short, the new systematic review is an ICNIRP production.
Indeed, ICNIRP’s scientific secretary, Dan Baaken, is another coauthor of the new review! He serves, with Karipidis, on the Commission’s board of directors. Baaken is on staff at the German Radiation Protection Office (BfS), the principal sponsor of ICNIRP.
ICNIRP has always rejected a cancer risk. No one on ICNIRP has ever broken ranks.* This is not surprising: The Commission is a private, self-perpetuating club. Membership demands swearing allegiance to the no-cancer dogma. Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.
The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted."

September 3, 2024

Today, many major news outlets are promoting a biased review of the literature commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) which claims that cellphone use has no link to cancer.

In my professional opinion, the WHO selected scientists to conduct systematic literature reviews on the biologic and health risks of wireless radiation who had demonstrated their bias through prior publications by either not finding evidence of harm or dismissing any evidence they found.

Moreover, each WHO team has one or more members of the ICNIRP, a German NGO that issues exposure limits for wireless radiation primarily based on research produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues. The ICNIRP limits, designed to protect humans only from the acute effects of heating induced by wireless radiation, are promoted by the WHO and are similar to those adopted by the FCC.

In 2019 investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major news media that exposed conflicts of interest in this "ICNIRP cartel." The journalists report that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the WHO and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund their research. Since then, a former ICNIRP member who served as editor in chief of the Bioelectromagnetics Society journal accused ICNIRP of "groupthink."

Recently, the ICBE-EMF published several peer-reviewed papers refuting the "thermal-only paradigm" upon which the ICNIRP exposure limits are based because the preponderance of peer-reviewed research finds non-thermal effects.

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). 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:10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Héroux P, Belyaev I, Chamberlin K, Dasdag S, De Salles AAA, et al. on behalf of the ICBE-EMF. Cell phone radiation exposure limits and engineering solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023, 20, 5398. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075398

ICBE-EMF also published a critique of another WHO-commissioned review:

Frank, J.W,, Melnick, R.L, Moskowitz, J.M., 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. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2024-0069/html

The WHO-commissioned paper that has revived the controversy about the cancer risks of cellphone radiation is now available:

Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environment International (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983

The paper's main conclusions seem biased (although not nearly as strong as reported in the news media)....

"For near field RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic fields] exposure to the head from mobile phone use, there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours.

For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from cordless phone use, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma."

My colleagues and I arrived at very different conclusions based upon our 2020 systematic review of 46 case-control studies on cellphone use and tumor risk:

Choi Y-J, Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Lee Y-R, Hong Y-C. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079

"In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings."

A preliminary comparison of the differences between our review and the new WHO review indicates that our review:

examined only case-control studies of tumor risk and cellphone use as we did not consider any occupational, cohort or time-trend studies to be of sufficient quality to warrant consideration;

our rubric for rating risk of bias of individual studies resulted in very different results;

and most importantly, we employed a more conventional approach to the analysis of the cumulative call time data that examined the effects of heavy cell phone use.

Furthermore, we successfully rebutted criticisms of our review made by three authors of the new WHO review in letters to the editor:

de Vocht F, Röösli M. Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3125; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063125. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3125

Myung S-K, Moskowitz JM, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Comment on Choi, Y.-J., et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(6), 3326; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18063326. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/3326

Brzozek C, Abramson MJ, Benke G, Karipidis K. Comment on Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(10): 5459. 2021. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105459. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5459

Moskowitz JM, Myung S-K, Choi Y-J, Hong Y-C. Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on “Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8079”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18(11), 5581. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115581.https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5581

The new WHO review relies heavily on cohort and time-trend studies of cellphone use and cancer risk which we have found to be at least as problematic as case-control studies in terms of drawing causal inferences:

Hardell L, Moskowitz JM. A critical analysis of the MOBI-Kids study of wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and brain tumor risk. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0040

Moskowitz JM. RE: Cellular Telephone Use and the Risk of Brain Tumors: Update of the UK Million Women Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. Djac109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac109

Moskowitz JM, Frank JW, Melnick RL, Hardell L, Belyaev I et al., ICBE-EMF. COSMOS. A methodologically-flawed cohort study of the health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone use. Environment International, Volume 190, 2024, 108807, doi: 1016/j.envint.2024.108807. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933

Although no scientific literature review is perfect, I believe that our 2020 review of cellphone use and tumor risk is less biased and will withstand the test of time better than the new review commissioned by the WHO.