The WHO finds mobile phone and wireless radiation cause cancer

Written by Gillian Jamieson on May 9, 2025. Posted in Current News

In what appears to be an astonishing volte-face, a WHO systematic review has found reliable evidence that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) increase the risk of cancer in animal experiments.

The WHO has a long history of downplaying the health risks of RF-EMFs from smart devices, WiFi and mobile communications base stations. Indeed, up until two weeks ago, when a correction to a different WHO review forced an admission that RF-EMFs do after all have a negative impact on male fertility, this history seemed to be repeating itself.

The WHO EMF Project had commissioned 12 separate reviews to assess existing studies on the health effects of EMFs and indeed, many of these were true to form, finding little harm from wireless radiation.

Take, for example, the systematic review on ‘The Effect of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields on Cancer Risk in the General and Working Population’, by Karipidis et al. (2024). This concluded that exposure to mobile phones or phone masts is unlikely to cause brain cancer or childhood cancer and that occupational exposure may not cause brain cancer, with one of the authors, Ken Karipidis, being quoted in the Guardian as saying, “concerns around links between cancer and mobile phones should be put to rest”.

However, in a complete turnaround, this latest review, ‘Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure on Cancer in Laboratory Animal Studies’ (Mevissen et al.), published on April 25th, concludes that there is “evidence that RF-EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the [certainty of evidence] being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas” (brain tumours).

The review also found moderate certainty of evidence of an increased risk of rare tumours in the adrenal glands and in the liver. Although the study states that extrapolating the level of human risk of cancer from animal studies can be complex, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has said in its press release:

“Notably, the same types of tumours have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.” (The ICBE-EMF is an independent “ international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including wireless RF radiation.” ]

Why is it a surprise that a WHO-funded review is now admitting that RF-EMF exposure increases the risk of cancer? Put bluntly, the WHO has always appeared to be on the side of the telecoms industry, rather than on the side of public health. Oncologist and epidemiologist Professor Lennart Hardell in his comprehensive 2017 article, (which I highly recommend) alleged that the WHO EMF Project was compromised, since it began as a close collaboration between the WHO, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the electric, telecoms and military industries.

The project was partly financed by the industry lobbying organisations, GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum. Its current leader, van Deventer, is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which has long prioritised international lobbying efforts aimed at the WHO. Hardell also mentions the sharing of personnel between the WHO EMF Project and ICNIRP, whose safety exposure guidelines are followed by the UK.

Industry funding and conflicts of interest are likely to lead to flawed science. Six of the WHO reviews have already been severely criticised, with requests for retraction and another three have had to be corrected, in one case leading to an opposite conclusion to the original. Dr Joel Moskovitz of the University of California, Berkeley listed these issues in his webpage news (scroll down to his entry for 24th April).

The earlier review on the effects of RF-EMFs on humans, with regard to cancer (Karipidis et al. 2024), is one of those that has attracted criticism. The ICBE-EMF, in a letter to the article’s editor, stated that there were critical methodological flaws leading to an understatement of the potential for causation of cancer by RF-EMFs.

In addition, another recent meta-analysis by Moon et al. (2024), which used almost the same studies as Karipidis et al. found that higher cumulative call-time is associated with a statistically significantly higher relative risk of brain tumours in humans. Furthermore, another six recent meta-analyses showed similar results, confirming a close association between phone use and cancer. ICBE-EMF has produced an excellent fact sheet to illuminate the scientific flaws of the Karipidis et al. review and listing the other meta-analyses.

Riddled by conflicts of interest as the WHO project is (Hardell, 2017), the conclusion of its latest review (Mevissen et al. 2025) admitting cancer risks in animals is indeed highly significant. Public health bodies throughout the world rely on WHO guidance, which, even now, states that, “no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies”. In the UK, our Government seems to be fully reliant on the WHO.

COMARE, a Department of Health and Social Care expert committee, whose remit is to report on the health effects of RF-EMFs to Government, has never been asked to do so and indeed does not have the expertise.

It has admitted that it is awaiting the results of the WHO reviews, as mentioned in my written evidence to the ‘Broadband and Road to 5G Inquiry’. The last review undertaken by the UK itself was in 2012 by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR), a report which was discredited by Dr Starkey as it omitted and distorted scientific evidence, leading to wrong and misleading conclusions.

In its press release on 27th April 2025, the ICBE-EMF states about this latest review:

Given this high level of certainty, government policymakers worldwide should immediately move to revise their RF radiation exposure limits to protect public health and the environment. … Current exposure standards, based on outdated assumptions, do not reflect the scientific evidence linking RF radiation to cancer and other health effects. …

The conclusion of the study commissioned by the WHO shows that the long-standing assumption current government limits are based on — that cell phone RF radiation can only cause harm through tissue heating — is wrong.

With chronic disease and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) on the rise, surely it is time for the UK to stop relying on ICNIRP, to take on board the immense significance of the WHO producing a review admitting the harmful effects of EMFs and to adopt more protective guidelines. RF-EMFs are present in ever-increasing areas of our lives and the ability to reduce our own exposure, if we wish, is simply disappearing day by day.

Despite the classification in 2011 by the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of RF-EMFs as a Class 2B carcinogen and thousands of studies showing harm to health below the tissue heating threshold (ICNIRP’s main measure of harm), and despite the chance to update the safety exposure limits in 2020, these limits have remained unchanged since 1998. Long-term effects such as cancer and effects below the heating threshold were simply ignored.

This recent review giving reliable evidence that RF-EMFs increase the risk of cancer, along with the corrected review admitting that RE-EMFs have a negative impact on male sterility, therefore represent a huge change of emphasis. But what action will be taken by Government?

Put simply, and considering that the tumours described have also been found in human studies, anyone using a smartphone or other smart device, or who is near WiFi, near a smart meter, in a modern car, in a train or near a phone mast, is exposing themselves to the risk of cancer in the long-term. There are of course risks of other disease, but that is not the subject of this article.

Even those, such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity sufferers, who need to protect themselves from EMFs by not going out, by wearing shielding clothing and using only ethernet-wired computers, will soon find themselves being assaulted in their own homes by the need to have a smart meter, or even worse, will find that when their copper landline is finally discontinued, their BT Smart Hub 2 router, necessary for VOIP, has a DECT phone signal, which cannot be switched off, though the Wifi can be disabled. BT confirmed as much to an EMF surveyor friend of mine during an online chat.

And what about those living in flats, being irradiated by their neighbours’ WiFi, or even a nearby phone mast? We are reaching a stage where there is no longer any choice.

This recent review should be a wake-up call for everyone, not just those who suspected as much all along. Although most people cannot imagine life without a smartphone, much can be done through engineering solutions and by using wired internet connections in homes, schools and workplaces, as well as various personal measures, such as not carrying your smartphone next to your body or using a Faraday bag. But first of all, people have to know about the harms of EMFs. Who will tell them?

See more here Substack

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.