Scientists Challenge WHO Analysis on Wireless Safety: "We Do Not Believe Those Systematic Reviews Provide Valid Reassurance"
A newly published, peer-reviewed paper raises vital questions about how safety limits for RF-EMF (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields) are set worldwide. Who gets to define what “safe” really means?
On 7th October 2025, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) held a press conference to mark the publication of its new paper. The paper, published in the journal Environmental Health, is titled: “The WHO-Commissioned Systematic Reviews on Health Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Provide No Assurance of Safety” (Melnick et al., 2025).
The speakers were:
Professor John Frank MD: ICBE-EMF Chairperson; physician and epidemiologist, University of Edinburgh; Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Ron Melnick Ph.D.: Past Chair, ICBE-EMF; Senior Advisor; former Senior Toxicologist, National Toxicology Program (NTP), NIEHS
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe: ICBE-EMF Special Expert; physician; founder, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment
Joel Moskowitz Ph.D.: 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
In turn, each demonstrated how the WHO’s conclusions on wireless safety, which seem reassuring at first glance, are built on woefully shaky grounds.
Among the many concerns raised was the insufficient basis by which a “safe” exposure limit was historically determined:
“Most people don’t realise the basis for the current exposure limits to radio frequency radiation. These were actually based on studies in the 1980s that involved 40-60 minute exposures to small groups of rats and monkeys. And when they identified what they considered an apparent threshold, they applied arbitrary ‘safety factors’. But the threshold itself and the safety limit were based on two major assumptions. One is any biological effect is due to excessive tissue heating, and no effect would occur below that putative threshold dose. However, there’s hundreds of papers showing effects below the putative threshold dose, and numerous effects showing below the ‘safety limit’ itself. So the limit lacks scientific basis … The studies that were used to set the exposure limits are just inadequate – they don’t cover chronic exposure.
–Ron Melnick Ph.D, press conference
The WHO’s commissioned study: flawed, biased, and unsuitable as a policy basis
The WHO’s commissioned study was as follows: a set of twelve systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MAs) on effects of RF electromagnetic fields (EMF) up to 300 GHz. The issues under scrutiny ranged from from cancer and cognition to reproductive health, and the findings were published in Environment International between October 2023 and May 2025. The WHO will consolidate the SR-MAs as the basis for recommendations in an upcoming monograph.
Taken at face value, the WHO’s findings suggest that the existing limits are safe. The ICBE-EMF paper challenges this conclusion, citing conflicts of interest and fundamentally flawed methodologies.
“This paper highlights numerous flaws, significant methodological concerns, as well as likely biases in these reviews which undermine the validity of the authors’ conclusions and raises serious doubts about the suitability of most of these reviews for informing policy or risk management decisions.”
–from the ICBE-EMF paper (Melnick et al., 2025)
The paper’s key criticisms include:
1. Fragile evidence bases
Many of the meta-analyses depended upon too few studies, with too much variation. The inappropriate combining (heterogeneity) of different kinds of data and methods rendered many of the interpretations meaningless.
2. Selective inclusion
Some high-quality studies were excluded for technical reasons. For example: several studies that showed a statistically significant correlation between mobile phone use and higher cancer risk were excluded from the relevant review (SR1B) – due to having been published after the 2019 cut-off. This would very clearly skew the analysis, especially given that cancer typically has a long latency period. In a similar vein, SR5 –which focused on cognition– excluded a hugely comprehensive 10-year longitudinal study on children. The ignored study pointed towards significant adverse effects from mobile phone exposure.
“Our meta-analysis in 2020 found that people who spend 1,000 or more hours on cellphone calls had a 60% higher risk of developing a head or neck tumor. At least half a dozen systematic reviews have found similar findings with regard to the human cancer risk. But that’s not what the WHO Systematic Review found…”
–Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D, press conference
3. Misinterpretation of “low certainty”
Reviews rated much of the evidence as low certainty — yet from this they inferred “no effect.” This is a logical fallacy. The ICBE-EMF team emphasise that “lack of evidence of harm” is not the same as “evidence of safety.”
4. Animal and reproductive data ignored
Experimental studies on animals indicate that RF-EMF exposure correlates with an increase in tumours– as well as reproductive impacts such as reduced fertility, foetal malformations, and developmental damage. The WHO reviews do acknowledge these findings, but downplay them considerably.
5. Conflict of Interests
Several WHO review authors are also members of ICNIRP, the advisory body on global RF exposure limits. The ICBE-EMF paper warns that such overlap runs the risk of groupthink, confirmation bias, and of past assumptions remaining unquestioned. Furthermore, there is a striking conflict of interests: ICNIRP has links to military and telecommunications industries.
Why this matters, and what we can do as individuals
Wireless exposure has become ubiquitous. The historical assumption was that only its thermal (heating) effects could cause harm. Yet as the ICBE-EMF authors point out, physiological damage can manifest in many other ways –for example, oxidative stress– all of which require high-quality investigation. And susceptibility can, of course, vary among individuals.
The WHO’s commissioned report will shape RF-EMF safety regulations and exposure standards worldwide. But if the reviews which underpin it are flawed and its authorship compromised, those future standards may grossly underestimate genuine risk. Independent expertise and transparency, not false reassurance, are needed.
While there remains uncertainty about safe levels, ICBE-EMF has provided some everyday advice for reducing wireless radiation exposure. This can be found on their website at https://icbe-emf.org/cell-phone-and-wireless-safety-tips-on-reducing-wireless-radiation-exposure/
World Council for Health has also produced information on wireless radiation. This can be accessed at https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/what-is-5g-health-risks/.
“If you are concerned about your local environment, you probably do need to take some kind of action and see whether or not a community coalition of concerned citizens may be able to make a difference – which has happened in many, many cities around the world where they have stopped new (transmission) towers from being built.”
–Professor John Frank MD, press conference
World Council for Health commends all who strive to create a healthier future, and stands for a better way.
References and further reading
ICBE-EMF. (2025, October 7). Scientists challenge WHO reviews on wireless health effects: Press conference [Video]. In Electromagnetic Safety Alliance (Producer). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jjt1EZ2wYQ&t=21s
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://icbe-emf.org/
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. (n.d.). Cell phone and wireless safety tips on reducing wireless radiation exposure. Retrieved October 19, 2025, from https://icbe-emf.org/cell-phone-and-wireless-safety-tips-on-reducing-wireless-radiation-exposure/
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. (2025, October 2). New paper: WHO reviews on cell-phone and wireless health effects provide no safety assurance [Press release]. https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/
Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M., Héroux, P. et al. 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
World Council for Health. (n.d.). What is 5G? Health risks. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.worldcouncilforhealth.org/what-is-5g-health-risks/
World Health Organization. (n.d.). The International EMF Project. Retrieved October 18, 2025, from https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project
US Senator Blumenthal Questions 5G Health Risks at Senate Hearing February 6, 2019 - 4:51 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekNC0J3xx1w