World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

Int J Oncol. 2017 Aug; 51(2): 405–413.

Published online 2017 Jun 21. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4046

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

PMCID: PMC5504984

PMID: 28656257

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a

hard nut to crack (Review)

Lennart Hardell

Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence to: Dr Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro

University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden, E-mail: lennart.hardell@regionorebrolan.se

Received 2017 Apr 1; Accepted 2017 Jun 6.

Copyright : © Hardell et al.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the

use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Abstract

In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from

radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for

glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen.

Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of

this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health

hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched

a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six

members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of

interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are

dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many

comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it

was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.

Keywords: electromagnetic fields, EMF, radiofrequency radiation, public exposure, cancer, WHO,

monograph, conflict of interest, ICNIRP, non-thermal effects, health risks

1. Introduction

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 1 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

The use of wireless digital technology has grown rapidly during the last couple of decades

(http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf). During use,

mobile phones and cordless phones emit radio-frequency (RF) radiation. The brain is the main target

organ for RF emissions from the handheld wireless phone (1,2). An evaluation of the scientific

evidence on the brain tumour risk was made in May 2011 by the International Agency for Research on

Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO). IARC is independently financed and has its

own governing and scientific councils, which WHO staff only attend as observers

(http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/research/iarc/en/).

Epidemiological studies provided supportive evidence of increased risk for head and brain tumours,

i.e., acoustic neuroma and glioma. The working group reached the conclusion that RF radiation from

devices that emit non-ionizing RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz-300 GHz, is a Group 2B,

i.e. a 'possible', human carcinogen (3,4). Later studies have corroborated these findings and have thus

strengthened the evidence (5–8).

Several laboratory studies have indicated mechanisms of action for RF radiation carcinogenesis such as

on DNA repair, oxidative stress, down regulation of mRNA and DNA damage with single strand breaks

(9–13). A report was released from The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the National

Institutes of Health (NIH) in USA on the largest ever animal study on cell phone RF radiation and

cancer (14). An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was

found in rats. Acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma is a similar type of tumour as the one found

in the heart, although benign. Thus, this animal study supported human epidemiological findings on RF

radiation and brain tumour risk (8).

The IARC cancer classification includes all sources of RF radiation. The exposure from mobile phone

base stations, Wi-Fi access points, smart phones, laptops and tablets can be long-term, sometimes

around the clock, both at home and at school. For children this risk may be accentuated because of a

cumulative effect during a long lifetime use (15). Developing and immature cells can also be more

sensitive to exposure to RF radiation (9).

In spite of the IARC evaluation little has happened to reduce exposure to RF fields in most countries.

On the contrary, with new technology increasing environmental exposure levels are found as in

measurements of ambient RF radiation at e.g. Stockholm Central Station and Stockholm Old Town in

Sweden (16,17). The exposure guideline used by many agencies was established in 1998 by the

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and was based only on

established short-term thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation neglecting non-thermal biological

effects (18). The heating effects arise when radiation is so high that it warms up the whole body by 1°C

or more after 30 min exposure at 4 W/kg specific absorption rate. The guidelines are set with a safety

factor of 50 for the general public (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index4.html).

Basis for limiting exposure according to ICNIRP: 'Only established effects were used as the basis for

the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not

considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects

such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting

objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 2 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP

concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions,

although epidemiological research has provided suggestive, but unconvincing, evidence of an

association between possible carcinogenic effects.'

(http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf).

This is an exceptional statement by ICNIRP, and found in many statements of groups following the

ICNIRP philosophy like the AGNIR and on the WHO EMF Project's homepage as well, that

epidemiology found 'suggestive, but unconvincing' evidence. What is convincing or not is so decidedly

subjective that no scientific body will ever make this as a basis for a decision. There might be gaps in

knowledge that make it difficult to decide about the mechanisms that underlie an observation and even

an observation could be considered unreliable but the conviction must not enter a rational discourse

about a scientific issue.

The guidelines were updated in 2009 but still do not cover cancer and other long-term or non-thermal

health effects. ICNIRP gives the guideline 2 to 10 W/m2 for RF radiation depending on frequency, thus

only based on a short-term immediate thermal effect (19). ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO)

based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP

members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of

huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry.

In contrast to ICNIRP, the BioInitiative Reports from 2007 and updated in 2012, based the evaluation

also on non-thermal health effects from RF radiation (20,21). The scientific benchmark for possible

health risks was defined to be 30 to 60 µW/m2. Thus, using the significantly higher guideline by

ICNIRP gives a 'green card' to roll out the wireless digital technology thereby not considering nonthermal health effects from RF radiation. Numerous health hazards are disregarded such as cancer (8),

effects on neurotransmitters and neuroprotection (22,23), blood-brain-barrier (24,25), cognition

(26–29), psychological addiction (30–32), sleep (33–36), behavioral problems (37–41) and sperm

quality (13,42,43).

No doubt the IARC decision started a world-wide spinning machine to question the evaluation. It was

similar to the one launched by the tobacco industry when IARC was studying and evaluating passive

smoking as a carcinogen in the 1990s (44). Sowing confusion and manufacturing doubt about scientific

facts is a well-known strategy used by the tobacco and other industries (8,45–48).

2. The WHO fact sheet

A Fact Sheet from WHO issued in June 2011 shortly after the IARC cancer classification in May 2011

stated that 'To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone

use' (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/fact-sheets/fs193/en/). This statement was not based on scientific

evidence at that time on a carcinogenic effect from RF radiation. It was certainly a remarkable

conclusion by WHO since IARC is part of WHO although seemingly independent, see above.

However, it is also important to note that the statement in the Fact Sheet does not fully contradict the

IARC statement. A Group 2B carcinogen is considered by IARC as an agent where an association with

cancer has been detected that can be causally interpreted but for which chance, bias and confounding

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 3 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

cannot be ruled out with sufficient scientific certainty. Hence, the statement in the Fact Sheet is in line

with IARC's classification although, of course, it will rather be understood as a full dismissal of claims

of harm.

In the WHO Fact Sheet it was also stated that 'WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all

studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012.' The pertinent question is why

WHO was so keen to make a new risk evaluation shortly after the IARC evaluation. It was hardly

expected that new studies would be published in short time changing the classification of RF radiation

as a possible, Group 2B, human carcinogen. Considering the WHO statement of 'no adverse health

effects' the aim might have been to undermine the IARC decision and give the telecom industry a 'clean

bill' of health (8). It might, however, be argued that as a result of the IARC classification, it was

necessary for WHO to also look at other effects, and not just tumours.

3. The WHO EMF project

The biophysicist Michael Repacholi from Australia was the first chairman of ICNIRP in 1992. His own

research within this field is scanty, although a study on lymphoma incidence in mice exposed to RF

radiation published in 1997 has attracted interest (49). Repacholi suggested in 1995 that WHO should

start the EMF project. This was adopted by WHO in 1996, see WHO Press office: WHO launches new

international project to assess health effects of electric and magnetic fields; 4 June 1996 (50).

Repacholi was during 1996–2006 the leader of the WHO department of electromagnetic radiation, the

WHO EMF project.

The WHO EMF project is supposed to: 1) provide information on the management of EMF protection

programs for national and other authorities, including monographs on EMF risk perception,

communication and management; 2) provide advice to national authorities, other institutions, the

general public and workers, about any hazards resulting from EMF exposure and any needed

mitigation measures. (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index1.html).

Michael Repacholi immediately set up a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP (being head of

both organizations) inviting the electric, telecom and military industries to meetings. He also arranged

for large part of the WHO EMF project to be financed by the telecommunication industry's lobbying

organisations; GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum, now called Mobile & Wireless

Forum (MWF) (51) in addition to WHO, see the International EMF Project, Progress Report June

2005–2006 (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-2006.pdf).

Repacholi acted like a representative for the telecom industry while responsible for the EMF health

effects department at the WHO (http://microwavenews.com/news/time-stop-who-charade). Since he

left WHO in 2006 he has been involved in industry propaganda video interviews with GSM

Association and Hydro Quebec (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDZx7MphDjQ;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MI_fa5YsgY) where he clearly speaks in favor of the

telecommunications and the power industries, respectively.

Michael Repacholi is still the Chairman emeritus at ICNIRP (http://www.icnirp.org/en/abouticnirp/emeritus-members/index.html) and has propagated during almost 20 years worldwide the 'only

thermal effect' paradigm of health risks from RF-EMF exposure, ignoring the abundant evidence for

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 4 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

non-thermal effects or cancer risks.

Repacholi recruited Emilie van Deventer to the WHO EMF Project in 2000. She is the current project

manager at WHO for the EMF project. She has been a long time member of the industry dominated

organization Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE is the world's most

powerful federation of engineers. The members are or have been employed in companies or

organizations that are producers or users of technologies that depend on radiation frequencies, such as

power companies, the telecom and the military industry. IEEE has prioritized international lobbying

efforts for decades especially aimed at the WHO, for more information see (http://www.icesemfsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Approved-Minutes-TC95-Jan_16.pdf).

Van Deventer is an electrical engineer. She has no formal or earlier knowledge in medicine,

epidemiology or biology, so it is surprising that she was selected for such an important position at the

WHO (http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/people_vandeventer.htm) (http://www.itu.int/ITUT/worksem/emc-emf/201107/bios.html).

The very same year she was recruited to the WHO EMF Project Toronto University Magazine wrote

about Emilie van Deventer's work stating that it was 'invaluable' to industry: 'The software modelling

done by teams like van Deventer's is invaluable.' 'The industrial community is very interested in our

research capabilities,' says van Deventer. 'It always needs to be working on the next generation of

products, so it turns to universities to get the research done.'

(http://www.research.utoronto.ca/edge/fall2000/content2b.html).

The importance of this work is reflected in the research funding van Deventer and her team received

from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Communications &

Information Technology Ontario (CITO), and their major industrial partner, Nortel. 'We are fulfilling a

very real need in the industry today, which will only increase as technology creates more opportunity.

In the process, consumers will continue to enjoy faster computers, lighter cell phones, smaller

electronic organizers and the vast array of other electronic gadgets the high-tech world has to offer.'

(http://www.research.utoronto.ca/edge/edgenet/fall2000/a-clear-signal/).

4. WHO radio frequency fields: Environmental health criteria monograph

Two years after the anticipated 'formal risk assessment' by WHO in 2012 a draft was launched in 2014

(http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/). It was open for public consultation until

December 31, 2014, but is now closed according to the WHO home page.

It was stated that: 'The process used in developing the chapters is described in Appendix X. Note that

the chapters 1, 13 and 14 which will provide a summary, health risk assessment and protective

measures are not available for this consultation. The drawing of conclusions from the literature and the

drafting of these chapters is the remit of a formal Task Group that will be convened by WHO at a later

stage in the process.'

It must be regarded to be unusual and scientifically inadequate not to provide for review the health risk

assessment and protective measures which would be most important parts of the Monograph.

Furthermore, it turned out that of the six members in the WHO Core Group four are active members of

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 5 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

ICNIRP and one is a former member. This was published in 2016 (52) and also discussed more

recently (8). Only one person seems to be independent of ICNIRP, see Table I. Several persons have

also affiliation(s) to other advisory groups, authorities and/or committees. Six of the 20 additional

experts are affiliated with ICNIRP.

Table I

Members of WHO Monograph core group and their involvement in different other groups (8).

Name

WHO ICNIRP UK/AGNIR SSM SCENIHR

Simon Mann

X

X

X

Maria Feychting

X

X

X

Gunnhild Oftedal

X

X

Eric van Rongen

X

Maria Rosaria Scarfi

X

X

Xa

Denis Zmirou

X

Xa

X

X

X

a

Former. WHO, World Health Organization; ICNIRP, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection; AGNIR, Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation; SSM, Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (Swedish

Radiation Safety Authority); SCENIHR, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health

Risks.

Being a member of ICNIRP is a conflict of interest in the scientific evaluation of health hazards from

RF radiation through ties to military and industry. This is particularly true since the ICNIRP guidelines

are of huge importance to the influential telecommunications, military and power industries. Another

conflict of interest is for members officially assessing possible health effects below their own set

ICNIRP guidelines, which they have already stated as beeing safe, see also discussion in (52). Such

persons would hardly have different opinions than those stated by ICNIRP. Critical views are not heard

and a balanced scientific evaluation is not obtained.

It should be noted that the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded

already in 2008 that being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated

officially whenever a member from ICNIRP makes opinions on health risks from EMF (Karolinska

Institute diary number: 3753-2008-609). No statement of such conflict of interest can be found in the

WHO draft of the Monograph on RF radiation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 6 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Several persons and groups have sent critical comments to WHO on the many shortcomings in the draft

of the Monograph on RF fields. In general WHO has not responded to these comments and it is unclear

to what extent, if any, they are considered. Due to the short time for submission our (Lennart Hardell,

Michael Carlberg) comments related only to section 12.1 Cancer Epidemiology. Our concluding

remarks dated December 15, 2014 were: 'In conclusion the WHO draft is biased towards the null

results. Findings on an association between use of wireless phones (mobile phones and cordless

phones) and increased risk for brain tumours are misinterpreted, selectively reported and/or omitted in

total. The draft cannot be used as science-based evaluation of increased risk. It needs to be re-written in

a balanced way by scientists trained in epidemiology and oncology, not the least in medicine, and

without conflicts of interest.'

Moreover, after the formal closing date for comments on the Monograph several additional

submissions have been made to WHO. Professor Michael Kundi at Center for Public Health, Institute

of Environmental Health, Vienna, Austria stated in his summary dated January 12, 2015: 'I was only

able to check chapter 12 about cancer and only the epidemiological studies. While the EHC

(Environmental Health Criteria) team did a great job in allocating the relevant literature with only few

more recent papers missing, I'm not fully satisfied with the assessment of the evidence. There is a

striking imbalance in the comments made on studies that were positive in contrast to those that were

negative. Only the most obvious shortcomings of studies that didn't report an effect of exposure are

mentioned while positive findings are often discussed at length, sometimes with very far-fetched

assumptions about potential sources of bias. This is in marked contrast to other EHC monographs that

are discussing the evidence in a way not to overlook a potential harmful effect. My comments, giving

reference to the lines of the draft are detailed on the following pages.'

The BioInitiative Working Group issued December 19, 2016 a 'No Confidence' Letter to the WHO

EMF Program Manager: 'The BioInitiative Working Group urges the World Health Organization to

make changes to the WHO RF EHC Core Group membership to more fairly reflect membership and

expertise of the 2011 IARC RF Working Group. At present, the WHO RF EHC Core Group is

indistinguishable from ICNIRP… undermining credibility of the process and ensuring doubt about

conclusions… Even if schedule delays occur as a result, an acceptable outcome depends on public

confidence. There [are] now many thousands of high quality scientific papers indicating possible nonthermal RF risks to health and those experts most competent by virtue of their research contributions

are absent from this process… Both human and animal results are now available to incorporate in the

RF EHC risk assessment. This important effort can only be assured with a more balanced composition

of core participants in the process. As well, the membership needs to be inclusive of under-represented

countries such as Russia, China, India, Turkey, and Iran whose research communities have produced

the majority of studies on non-thermal effects of RF in recent years.'

(http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/BIWG-final-draft-WHO-RF-EHCMonograph-team-composition.pdf).

This letter was followed by another from the BioInitiative Working Group on January 24, 2017

including suggestion of experts to replace present persons in the Core Group and Additional Experts:

'We have not yet received a reply acknowledging our letter… It is important that the most

knowledgeable panel of experts be appointed to prepare the RF EHC Monograph. At present, the EHC

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 7 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Core Group members uniformly represent attitudes and scientific positions of ICNIRP, an organization

whose membership has steadfastly refused to accept new scientific evidence of potential health risks

from non-thermal, low-intensity radiofrequency radiation despite recent scientific advances in

knowledge on the subject. We are recommending substitutions for membership as indicated on the

attached page. Please note that we are suggesting a complete replacement for those persons currently

holding positions.' (http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BIWG-EHCsubstitution-letter.pdf).

Call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure was made by the International

Electromagnetic Field Scientist Appeal, initial release date May 11, 2015, latest version's date January

29, 2017 with 222 signatures from 41 nations: 'We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and

health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF)… Effects include increased cancer risk,

cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of

the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on

general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence

of harmful effects to both plant and animal life. These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations

(UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert

strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging

precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and

fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfil its role as the preeminent

international public health agency.' (https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal).

A press release was issued on February 24, 2017 by the European coordination of organizations for an

EMF exposure regulation which truly protects public health. The European citizens' organizations

failed, however, to include in their letter the conflict of interest associated with ICNIRP members

assessing possible effects below set ICNIRP guidelines, see discussion above. They stated that: 'The

Conflict of Interest Scandal is repeating itself in the WHO: European citizens' organizations uncover

conflicts of interest between the health and radiofrequency WHO expert group and telecommunications

or electric companies. Almost 40 organizations and European Platforms (which in turn include many

regional, national or local social organizations), supported by the International EMF Alliance (IEMFA),

denounce the flagrant conflict of interest of the Core Group of experts for drafting, in the current year,

of a WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radio-Frequency Fields…

The preponderant presence of members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP) reminds us that this organization (and other institutions with the same criteria)

refused to accept new scientific evidence of potential health risks from non-thermal, low-intensity

radiofrequency radiation despite recent scientific advances in knowledge on the subject. The ICNIRP

not only does not guarantee transparency or independence but conflicts of interest of its members are

well known and reported, due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies,

thereby undermining the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards

for non-ionizing radiation… By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the

preeminent international public health agency…'

(http://www.peccem.org/DocumentacionDescarga/PlataformaEstatal/notasprensa/European.coordination.press.release-february-2017.pdf).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 8 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Letter dated March 1, 2017 from Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection to

Maria Neira, Director, Public Health and Environment with copy to Dr. E. van Deventer, Public Health

and Environment, WHO: 'It has just come to our attention that the WHO RF Working group consists

mainly from present and past ICNIRP members. In general, the WG is not balanced and… the private

self-elected organization ICNIRP, similar as majority of the current WHO RF WG members, does not

recognize the non-thermal RF effects,… Thus, the guidelines of ICNIRP are irrelevant to present

situation when majority of population over the world is chronically exposed to non-thermal RF from

mobile communication.' (http://www.radiationresearch.org/articles/rusncnirp-letter-to-who/), letter

available at (http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/RNCNIRP-letter-WHO/2017_03_01.pdf).

5. Human Health Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation - Informal meeting at WHO

March 3, 2017

It is quite obvious that it would be of utmost value to learn what is on-going at WHO regarding the

Monograph on RF radiation, especially since formal responses to submissions with comments are

virtually absent. Thus, some 9 months after initial contact Dr Maria Neira accepted to organize a

meeting, relating to the effects of electromagnetic fields on health, in her office at WHO in Geneva.

The request for a meeting was made by independent researchers from different universities. An

informal meeting was organized on March 3, 2017. (http://eceriinstitute.org/fichiers/1490952497_newsletter_ECERI_5.pdf).

Dr Maria Neira is Director of the Public Health and the Environment Department at WHO. Present at

the meeting was also Dr Emilie van Deventer, the Team Leader of the Radiation Programme at WHO

which deals with non-ionizing and ionizing radiation topics related to human health. She has been

working at WHO since 2000 where she heads the International EMF Project, the Ultraviolet

INTERSUN Programme and the International Radon Project. Dr van Deventer received a Ph.D. in

Electrical Engineering from the University of Michigan, USA. She was adjunct professor of Electrical

and Computer Engineering, financed by the telecom industry, at the University of Toronto in Canada

from 1992 to 2000. She is the WHO Observer on the Main Commission of ICNIRP, e.g. participating

in ICNIRP meetings. (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-andSeminars/emf/201307/Pages/vanDE-VENTERTaheraEmilie.aspx). She is also one of 8 members of the

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM).

The allocated time at the WHO office was 1.5 h. Dr Maria Neira opened the meeting stressing that it

was not official but informal. She told that her department is very much interested in challenging

science. In addition to myself, four additional experts were also present. The experts gave short

presentations on health effects of RF radiation, biological effects from exposure to non-thermal RF

radiation, overview of epidemiological studies on brain tumour risk, RF radiation and electromagnetic

hypersensitivity (EHS), and finally epigenetic mechanisms by which children are especially-vulnerable

to RF radiation. Obviously the five presentations were very short in order to give time for discussions,

the most important part of the meeting.

The participating team of five experts with considerable knowledge and own research within this area

offered to collaborate with WHO, especially to finalize the WHO Monograph on RF radiation. Maria

Neira stated clearly that no collaboration with WHO is to be considered, and further that she does not

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 9 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

intend to have another meeting with the group. However, she added that she is open to new data. She

also said that there is no conflict of interest with ICNIRP since ICNIRP is a WHO collaborative

organization. The scientific group, as above, was instead invited to send to WHO peer-reviewed

publications, especially meta-analyses that would be the 'best gift'.

It was stated by the WHO officials that ICNIRP is an NGO with an official relationship with WHO that

'helps us a lot in our analyses' and their members work as WHO's experts. Thus, in spite of five of six

persons in the Core Group for the Monograph being affiliated with ICNIRP, WHO seems to have no

intention to change these members. On the other hand, the Task Group is not finalized. According to

the meeting all experts are selected on individual basis and not as members of ICNIRP. Further, it was

stated that the WHO guideline documents are in full WHO's responsibility. It is not known when the

Monograph on RF radiation will be published. WHO still 'keeps looking at the evidence' and is still

adding new documents to the Monograph.

The decision by the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden from 2008 that

being a member of ICNIRP may be a conflict of interest that should be stated in scientific publications

was brought into attention during the meeting. WHO was unaware of that document and promised to

'look into it'. Obviously that conflict of interest applies to almost the whole Core Group of the

Monograph, several members of additional experts, not to say Emilie van Deventer and thus the whole

WHO EMF project and the Monograph on RF radiation.

6. Exposure to RF radiation within the WHO building in Geneva

In our on-going project on measurements of ambient RF radiation in some cities Geneva is part of the

study. Results of parts of Stockholm, Sweden have been published (16,17) and will be used e.g. for

comparison with levels in the future due to further development of this technology. In Geneva also

measurements within the WHO building; main entrance, some corridors and the meeting room were

included. These previously unpublished results have been communicated to the representatives at

WHO including that they will be published. There has been no reaction from the WHO.

An EME Spy 200 exposimeter with a valid calibration was used to collect the exposure data. The

exposimeter measures 20 predefined frequency bands that cover frequencies from 88–5,850 MHz. The

sampling time was every 4th sec which is the fastest for the given exposimeter, for further details see

our publications. For frequency modulation (FM), TV3, TETRA, TV4&5, Wi-Fi 2G and Wi-Fi 5G, the

lower detection limit is 0.01 V/m (0.27 µW/m2); for all other bands, the lower detection limit is 0.005

V/m (0.066 µW/m2) (16,17).

The results, presented in Table II, show low mean total exposure level, 21.5 µW/m2, thus below the

scientific benchmark of 30 to 60 µW/m2 that has been proposed to be the 'lowest observed effect level'

(LOEL) for RF radiation, see Chapter 24 of the BioInitiative Report (21). Note that only for the mean it

is possible to calculate the total as the sum of means of the individual frequency bands, mathematically

this is not possible for median, min and max in Table II. The major sources were GSM + UMTS 900

DL (3G), GSM 1800 DL (2G) and UMTS 2100 DL (3G), i.e. downlink (DL) of RF radiation from

outside base stations. The results for total exposure are also presented as box plot in Fig. 1. In Fig. 2

total exposure over time is presented. Almost all RF radiation was below 30 µW/m2, the LOEL of RF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 10 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

radiation for possible health risks as shown with the horizontal line. The highest peak level, 432.3

µW/m2, was measured at 15:54:07. Most contribution was from GSM 1800 (DL), 268.2 µW/m2, and

UMTS 2100 (DL), 110.4 µW/m2. This was measured just inside the building at the entrance and

represent RF radiation from base stations in the vicinity.

Figure 1

World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. Box plot for total exposure

in µW/m2, logarithmic scale. The median is indicated by a black line inside the box; the bottom and top of

the boxes show first and third quartiles; the end of the whisker is calculated as 1.5×IQR (interquartile range).

Points represent outliers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 11 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Open in a separate window

Figure 2

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Total RF field exposure (µW/m2, mean exposure=21.5

µW/m2, logarithmic scale) over time of one exposure round, March 3, 2017 time 13:57:53–15:58:31. The

horizontal line represents the LOEL exposure limit of 30 µW/m2 suggested by the Bioinitiative Report (21).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 12 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Table II

World Health Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) levels of RF-radiation March 3, 2017

(µW/m2) treating values at detection limit as 0.a

n

Mean Median Min

Max

FM

1,813

2.0

1.2

0.0

128.4

TV3

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

TETRA I

1,813

0.1

0.0

0.0

136.7

TETRA II

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TETRA III

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.2

TV4&5

1,813

0.1

0.0

0.0

11.9

LTE 800 (DL)

1,813

1.3

0.4

0.0

101.9

LTE 800 (UL)

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

GSM + UMTS 900 (UL) 1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.7

GSM + UMTS 900 (DL) 1,813

8.6

4.9

0.3

268.2

GSM 1800 (UL)

1,813

0.3

0.0

0.0

182.1

GSM 1800 (DL)

1,813

4.2

1.7

0.3

268.2

DECT

1,813

0.3

0.1

0.0

38.2

UMTS 2100 (UL)

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

UMTS 2100 (DL)

1,813

4.5

2.5

0.4

199.1

WIFI 2G

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

LTE 2600 (UL)

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

LTE 2600 (DL)

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

WIMax

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

WIFI 5G

1,813

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

Total

1,813

21.5

13.3

4.8

432.3

a

Frequency bands and number (n) of readings are given.

The exposure to RF radiation within the WHO building is very low compared to other measurements,

for example our measurements inside the Stockholm Central station where people both are passing

through but also are there for hours each day such as security and police staff, cafe workers, shop

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 13 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

workers, janitors, information counter people, etc., see Figs 3 and 4. Here, the mean total exposure for

the lowest exposure round was 2,817 µW/m2, mostly from down loading from GSM, 3G and 4G base

stations (16). Thus, the measured mean level in the WHO building is more than 130 times lower than in

the Stockholm Central Station.

Figure 3

Box plot for total exposure in µW/m2 for the seven measurement rounds in the Stockholm Central Railway

Station (16). The median is indicated by a black line inside each box; the bottom and top of the boxes show

first and third quartiles; the end of the whiskers are calculated as 1.5×IQR (interquartile range). Points

represent outliers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 14 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

Open in a separate window

Figure 4

Total radiofrequency field exposure (µW/m2) of the lowest exposure round (November 9, 2015; mean

exposure 2,817.0 µW/m2) by walking across the Stockholm Central Station (16). The line represents the

exposure limit of 30 µW/m2 suggested by the Bioinitiative Report (21).

7. Concluding remarks

The meeting at WHO was an obvious disappointment. During the discussion the two WHO officials

showed little interest to collaborate with the scientists convened at the meeting in spite of the scientific

evidence on adverse health effects. Their in-house experts seem to be members of ICNIRP, although

not exclusively. This may explain why only short-term thermal effects from RF radiation are accepted

as proofs of harm, and why non-thermal biological effects are ignored. In the draft of the Monograph a

large bulk of peer-reviewed scientific publications on non-thermal effects are dismissed, c.f. as also by

ICNIRP (19). Most remarkable is that WHO has no intention to replace the Core Group of experts

affiliated with ICNIRP. Thereby ICNIRP is given full access to and exclusive possibilities to influence

the Monograph. In view of the huge economic interests built into the ICNIRP guidelines, and several of

its expert members' ties to industry, no doubt this is a large conflict of interest that will seriously

undermine not only the credibility of the Monograph on RF radiation but also the credibility of WHO

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 15 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

as a protector of world health. Seriously enough, the Monograph will be the hallmark for years to come

on evaluation of health hazards from RF radiation and pave the way for increasing exposure to RF

radiation to people and environment, e.g. the fifth generation (5G), internet of things, etc.

Children and adolescents may be more sensitive to RF radiation than adults (2). Thus as an

authoritative agency, WHO has an obligation to reference all the scientific research results and call the

experts from all the related fields like engineering, health and medicine to engage in the re-evaluation

of all health effects including non-thermal of RF radiation. Related agencies should launch an objective

and transparent project for this assessment. The EMF project was started many years ago and many

new wireless digital technologies are developed and new devices are popularizing with a very fast

speed.

Protests and comments by scientific experts and several organizations seem to be ignored. The

Monograph might be political and industry supportive more than scientific and health promoting. For a

definitive conclusion a more thorough review of the whole draft document would be needed. By now it

is time for laymen, NGOs and scientists to exert pressure on politicians to change the WHO agenda on

RF radiation and health hazards and decide that WHO's purpose is to support world health instead of

industry interests. It is also time to evaluate the competence of the persons making the evaluations and

decisions before publishing the Monograph. Of note, evidence has been published (52) which indicated

that members of ICNIRP have written scientifically incorrect and misleading information. It is

unknown if WHO has responded to this evidence of suggested scientific misconduct.

To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially

oncology. Furthermore, what are the personal advantages, at least in the short time, for those refusing

to accept peer-reviewed scientific publications on adverse effects on health and environment from RF

radiation? Ironically enough, whether knowingly or not, the WHO staff seems to protect themselves

from high involuntary RF radiation levels at least in the measured areas within the Geneva building.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by grants from Mr. Brian Stein, Cancer - och Allergifonden, Cancerhjälpen.

References

1. Cardis E, Deltour I, Mann S, Moissonnier M, Taki M, Varsier N, Wake K, Wiart J. Distribution of

RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the brain. Phys Med Biol.

2008;53:2771–2783. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han Y-Y, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: The

underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med.

2012;31:34–51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N,

Islami F, Galichet L. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol.

2011;12:624–626. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 16 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

4. International Agency for Research on Cancer . Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency

Electromagnetic Fields. WHO Press; Lyon, France: 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation of

carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102. Available online:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2017.

[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Hansson Mild K. Case-control study of the association between

malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int J

Oncol. 2013;43:1833–1845. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated

with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. 2013;20:85–110. doi:

10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.11.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H,

Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT casecontrol study. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:514–522. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the

Bradford Hill viewpoints form 1965 on association or causation. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:9218486.

doi: 10.1155/2017/9218486. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Markovà E, Malmgren LO, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 focus

formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to

cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118:394–399. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[Google Scholar]

10. Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Ahmed R, Abegaonkar MP. Low intensity

microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, inflammatory response and DNA damage in rat brain.

Neurotoxicology. 2015;51:158–165. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2015.10.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

11. Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Erdal ME, Erdal N, Ay OI, Ay ME, Yilmaz SG, Tasdelen B, Yegin K.

Effects of 2.4 GHz radio-frequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression

in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015;91:555–561. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2015.1028599. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S. Oxidative

mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med.

2016;35:186–202. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Karabulut D, Caner Y, Adalier N. Does prolonged

radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices induce DNA damage in various tissues of rats? J

Chem Neuroanat. 2016;75:116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2016.01.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 17 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

14. Wyde M, Cesta M, Blystone C, Elmore S, Foster P, Hooth M, Kissling G, Malarkey D, Sills R,

Stout M, et al. Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis

Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body

Exposures) US National Toxicology Program (NTP); 2016. doi: org/10.1101/055699.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

[Google Scholar]

15. Hedendahl L, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to

the medical profession. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30:209–215. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0012.

[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Hardell L, Koppel T, Carlberg M, Ahonen M, Hedendahl L. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm

Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. Int J

Oncol. 2016;49:1315–1324. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Koppel T, Hedendahl L. High radio-frequency radiation at Stockholm Old

Town: An exposimeter study including the Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares and the

Swedish Parliament. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6:462–476. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Guidelines for limiting exposure

to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz) Health Phys.

1998;74:494–522. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP statement on the

'Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to

300 GHz)'. Health Phys. 2009;97:257–258. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181aff9db. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

20. BioInitiative Working Group BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public

Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors.

Bioinitiative. 2007 http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

21. BioInitiative Working Group BioInitiative 2012 A Rationale for a Biologically-based Exposure

Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. Bioinitiative. 2012

http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

22. Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of clinically important neurotransmitters under the influence of

modulated RF fields - A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft.

2011;24:44–57. (In German). https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Rimbach-Study-20112.pdf.

[Google Scholar]

23. Fragopoulou AF, Samara A, Antonelou MH, Xanthopoulou A, Papadopoulou A, Vougas K,

Koutsogiannopoulou E, Anastasiadou E, Stravopodis DJ, Tsangaris GT, et al. Brain proteome response

following whole body exposure of mice to mobile phone or wireless DECT base radiation.

Electromagn Biol Med. 2012;31:250–274. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.631068. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 18 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

24. Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier

permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile

phone. Pathophysiology. 2009;16:103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, Zuo S, Feng H, Chen Z, Zhu G. Exposure to 900 MHz

electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and

cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res. 2015;1601:92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.019.

[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Abramson MJ, Benke GP, Dimitriadis C, Inyang IO, Sim MR, Wolfe RS, Croft RJ. Mobile

telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents.

Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30:678–686. doi: 10.1002/bem.20534. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

27. Deshmukh PS, Nasare N, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Singh D, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi

AK, Mediratta PK. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity

microwave radiation. Int J Toxicol. 2015;34:284–290. doi: 10.1177/1091581815574348. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Calvente I, Pérez-Lobato R, Núñez MI, Ramos R, Guxens M, Villalba J, Olea N, Fernández MF.

Does exposure to environmental radiofrequency electromagnetic fields cause cognitive and behavioral

effects in 10-year-old boys? Bioelectromagnetics. 2016;37:25–36. doi: 10.1002/bem.21951. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. OECD . Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. PISA, OECD Publishing;

2015. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en.

Accessed on April 1, 2017. [Google Scholar]

30. Spitzer M. Information technology in education: Risks and side effects. Trends Neurosci Educ.

2014;3:81–85. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2014.09.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Hensinger P. Big data: A paradigm shift in education from personal autonomy to conditioning

toward excessive consumerism. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft. 2015;28:206–213. [Google Scholar]

32. Roser K, Schoeni A, Foerster M, Röösli M. Problematic mobile phone use of Swiss adolescents: Is

it linked with mental health or behaviour? Int J Public Health. 2016;61:307–315. doi: 10.1007/s00038015-0751-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Hardell L, Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Zetterberg H, Hansson Mild K. Exposure to wireless phone

emissions and serum β-trace protein. Int J Mol Med. 2010;26:301–306. doi: 10.3892/ijmm_00000466.

[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Sangün Ö, Dündar B, Çömlekçi S, Büyükgebiz A. The effects of electromagnetic field on the

endocrine system in children and adolescents. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2015;13:531–545. [PubMed]

[Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 19 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

35. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H,

Lercher P, Müller K, et al. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and

treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016;31:363–397. doi:

10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association between portable screenbased media device access or use and sleep outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA

Pediatr. 2016;170:1202–1208. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Thomas S, Heinrich S, von Kries R, Radon K. Exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields

and behavioural problems in Bavarian children and adolescents. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:135–141.

doi: 10.1007/s10654-009-9408-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young

children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:524–529. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.115402.

[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I.

Pathophysiology. 2013;20:191–209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

40. Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II.

Pathophysiology. 2013;20:211–234. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

[Google Scholar]

41. Sudan M, Olsen J, Arah OA, Obel C, Kheifets L. Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and

emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 May 23; doi:

10.1136/jech-2016-207419. Epub ahead of print. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF. Use of laptop computers connected to

internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil

Steril. 2012;97:39–45.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Dasdag S, Taş M, Akdag MZ, Yegin K. Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency

radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015;34:37–42.

doi: 10.3109/15368378.2013.869752. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on

Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet. 2000;355:1253–1259. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)020985. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Michaels D, editor. Doubt is Their Product How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your

Health. Oxford University Press; New York: 2008. [Google Scholar]

46. McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Bending Science. How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health

Research. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, London: 2008. [Google Scholar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 20 of 21

World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

8/20/20, 11:10 AM

47. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on

Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press; New York: 2010.

[Google Scholar]

48. Walker MJ, editor. Corporate Ties that Bind. An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and

Vested Interest in Public Health. Skyhorse Publishing; New York: 2017. [Google Scholar]

49. Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1

transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHZ electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res. 1997;147:631–640.

doi: 10.2307/3579630. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. WHO Launches New International Project to Assess Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic

Fields. Press release WHO/42, June 4, 1996.

51. Leloup D. Téléphonie mobile: Trafic d'influence à l'OMS? Mediaattitudes. 2007

http://www.mediattitudes.info/2006/12/trafic-dinfluence-loms.html. Accessed on April 1, 2017.

52. Starkey SJ. Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Nonionising Radiation. Rev Environ Health. 2016;31:493–503. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0060. [PubMed]

[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Oncology are provided here courtesy of Spandidos Publications

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

Page 21 of 21