WHO Analysis of Wireless EMF Safety Challenged
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 World Health Organisation’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 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.
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.
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/.
World Council for Health commends all who strive to create a healthier future, and stands for a better way.
See more here substack.com
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.