ArticlePDF Available

Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation

January 2021
Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 05(02)

DOI:10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Authors:

Lennart Hardell

Örebro University Hospital

Mona Nilsson

Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation

Tarmo Koppel

Tallinn University of Technology

Comparison of ICNIRP 1998 and 2020 reference levels across common mobile communication frequencies, time averaged (W/m²).

…

Guidelines by different organizations for radiofrequency radiation in μW/m 2 .

…

Many of them reappear in several of these organizations' expert groups and also in other groups not

…

Figures - uploaded by Mona Nilsson

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Mona Nilsson

Content may be subject to copyright.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 250

Commentary

Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation

Lennart Hardell1*, Mona Nilsson2, Tarmo Koppel3, Michael Carlberg1

1The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Studievägen 35, SE-702 17, Örebro, Sweden

2Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, Gredby 14, SE-178 92 Adelsö, Sweden

3Tallinn University of Technology, SOC353 Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia

*Corresponding Author: Lennart Hardell, The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Studievägen 35, SE 702 17,

Örebro, Sweden

Received: 04 May 2021; Accepted: 10 May 2021; Published: 21 May 2021

Citation: Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson, Tarmo Koppel, Michael Carlberg. Aspects on the International Commission on Non-

Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical

Therapeutics 5 (2021): 250-285.

Abstract

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP) published 2020 updated guidelines on

radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range 100

kHz to 300 GHz. Harmful effects on human health and the

environment at levels below the guidelines are downplayed

although evidence is steadily increasing. Only thermal

(heating) effects are acknowledged and therefore form the

basis for the guidelines. Despite the increasing scientific

evidence of non-thermal effects, the new ICNIRP guidelines

are not lower compared with the previous levels. Expert

groups from the WHO, the EU Commission and Sweden are

to a large extent made up of members from ICNIRP, with no

representative from the many scientists who are critical of the

ICNIRP standpoint.

Keywords: EU; WHO; ICNIRP; 5G; Microwave radiation

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 251

1. Introduction

Wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, cordless

phones, base stations, WiFi, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G emit

radiofrequency (RF) radiation, also called microwave

radiation. For a long time there has been concern among

laymen and a large part of the scientific community that such

radiation may be a health hazard and also have a negative

effect on the environment including birds [1], insects [2] and

plants [3,4].

The seminal first early warning on brain tumor risk

associated with exposure to RF radiation from mobile

phones was published some 20 years ago [5, 6]. In the

following case-control studies by the Hardell group, in

addition to mobile phones, also use of cordless phones

(DECT) was assessed. These studies confirmed an increased

risk for brain tumors, i.e. glioma, for both types of wireless

phones [7]. Similar findings were reported for acoustic

neuroma [8].

In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on

Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO)

evaluated RF radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300

GHz to be a possible human carcinogen, Group 2B [9,

10].The IARC decision on mobile phones was based mainly

on two sets of case-control human studies: the Hardell group

studies from Sweden [11-13] and the IARC Interphone study

[14, 15]. Both provided supportive evidence of increased risk

for brain and head tumors, i.e. glioma and acoustic neuroma.

Later published studies by the Hardell group [7, 8] and the

French CERENAT (CEREbral tumors: a NATional study)

study on glioma and meningioma [16] supported an

increased risk for brain tumors and use of mobile and

cordless phones. However, risks associated with the use of

cordless phones was assessed only by the Hardell group,

although cordless phones emit RF radiation of similar type

as mobile phones.

The increasing scientific evidence on cancer risks from RF

radiation, as well as other health effects, has had little or

mostly no effect on preventive measurements. This is due to

scientific disagreements and controversies. Some influential

organizations are downplaying the health risks, i.e. the

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization

(WHO), the European Union (EU) and the Swedish

Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), see next section. It has

been discussed that by now such exposure might be

classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1, according to

the IARC classification [17-19]. However, only an IARC

evaluation can make that classification.

Because of the controversies and the lobbying by influential

organizations, including the telecom industry, precautionary

measures are not taken and the public is not informed about

health risks [20, 21]. People in general are, as a consequence,

not taking preventive measures when using the handheld

wireless phone, WiFi, or when exposed to RF radiation from

base stations. Increasing ambient RF radiation gives higher

total human exposure [22, 23] in addition to the widespread

use of mobile and cordless phones.

During the last decades, the scientific evidence on other

health effects than cancer has also increased. By January

2021, 255 scientists from 44 nations and 15 supporting

scientists from 11 nations concluded that these effects occur

well below most international and national guidelines

recommended by ICNIRP, (see next section).

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 252

“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.” [24].

The scientific evidence on the carcinogenic potential of RF

radiation in laboratory studies has long been accumulating,

but has mostly been ignored or dismissed by e.g., ICNIRP,

the WHO, the EU and the SSM. The increased cancer risk in

humans for RF radiation is clearly supported by recent

animal studies [25-27] and mechanistic studies, both

induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [28], and DNA

damage [29-31]. The history on carcinogenic effects in

laboratory studies started several decades ago.

Co-carcinogenic effects of RF radiation exposure and

benzopyrene in mice were published already in 1982 [32].

The study showed that 2,450 MHz of RF radiation at either

50 or 150 W/m2 promoted carcinogenesis. These levels

exceed the ICNIRP guidelines, see below. The authors

concluded that the resulting acceleration of development of

spontaneous and chemically induced cancers indicated the

carcinogenic potential of RF radiation.

Two studies published in 1990 demonstrated that 2,450 MHz

continuous-wave RF radiation exerted a biphasic effect on

glioma cells [33] and lymphocytes [34]. Cell proliferation

was found at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of ≤50 W/kg,

whereas a higher SAR suppressed DNA and RNA synthesis.

These effects were reported to be non-thermal, i.e. not caused

by heating.

A statistically significant increased incidence of primary

malignant diseases was found in exposed animals compared

with sham exposure in a study on 200 rats exposed to 2,450

MHz pulsed RF radiation for 21.5 h/day for 25 months

compared with 200 controls. SAR ranged between 0.144 and

0.4 W/kg, depending on the rat's weight [35]. This was one

of the first large scale studies to be conducted. Consequently

the results in the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP)

[25-26] and the Ramazzini Institute [27] studies are in line

with these findings.

A study on mice carrying a lymphomagenic oncogene

exposed to RF radiation showed a statistically significant

increased risk for malignant lymphoma [36]. A total of 100

mice were sham-exposed and 101 were exposed for two

30-min periods per day for up to eighteen months to 900

MHz pulsed RF radiation with power densities of 2.6-13

W/m2 (SAR 0.008-4.2 W/kg; mean, 0.13-1.4 W/kg). These

results were not confirmed in the study by Utteridge et al.

[37] which has been noted not to be a replication study [10,

38].

A co-carcinogenic effect was found in a study on mice

exposed to a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System

(UMTS) test signal from the fetal period for up to 24 months

[39]. Animals were exposed to UMTS fields with intensities

of 0 (sham), 4.8 and 48 W/m2. The low-dose group was

subjected to additional prenatal ethylnitrosourea (ENU)

treatment. The group that was ENU-treated and

UMTS-exposed at 4.8 W/m2 exhibited an increased rate of

lung tumors and an increased incidence of lung carcinomas

as compared with the controls treated with ENU alone.

A tumor promoting effect was studied in another study on

ENU-treated mice. The exposure levels were 0 (sham), 0.04,

0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR. The numbers of lung and liver tumors

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 253

in exposed animals were statistically significant higher

compared with those in sham-exposed controls, as were the

numbers of malignant lymphoma. A tumor-promoting effect

of RF radiation was found at low to moderate levels (0.04

and 0.4 W/kg SAR), which were well below the exposure

limits for users of mobile phones, 2 W/kg (of tissue) to the

head [40].

Numerous published studies report effects or damage in

terms of oxidative stress, damage to DNA, gene and protein

expression, breakdown of the blood-brain barrier and

damage to the brain and other organs of the body [41, 42].

There is also increasing evidence of adverse (chronic) health

effects from long-term exposure. This was already reported

as the “microwave syndrome” or “radiofrequency sickness”

some fifty years ago. Reported health effects in scientific

studies during the last decades from exposure to mobile

phone towers, WiFi and mobile phones are consistent with

the reported effects from RF radiation (microwaves) half a

century ago [43, 44]. Furthermore, repeated studies show

harmful effects from prenatal exposure, both in animal

studies and in humans [45, 46].

Many countries around the world rely on guidelines for

maximum allowed exposure from ICNIRP, supported and

recommended by the WHO [47]. In Europe, most countries

also follow the recommendations from the EU Commission

that are based on ICNIRP and the EU expert group Scientific

Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risk

(SCENIHR). In 2020 ICNIRP published updated guidelines

[48] based on the reviews and opinions from the WHO 2014

environmental health criteria public consultation report,

SCENIHR 2015 [49] and the Scientific Council on

Electromagnetic Fields at the Swedish Radiation Safety

Authority (SSM) 2015, 2016, 2018 [50-52].

In this article we discuss how these organizations have

evaluated the increasing evidence of harmful effects of RF

radiation at levels below most national guidelines and limits

for RF radiation exposure. The same individuals reappear in

several of these organizations’ expert groups, see Table 1,

and there are no representatives in these groups from the

many scientists that disagree with their conclusions [24]. We

discuss primarily cancer risks in Appendix B of the ICNIRP

updated guidelines [48].

WHO 2014 core group

ICNIRP

IEEE

SSM

EMF Scientist

Appeal

The 5G Appeal

Emilie van Deventer, project

leader

Simon Mann

Maria Feychting

Gunnhild Oftedal

Eric van Rongen

Maria Rosaria Scarfi

Denis Zmirou

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 254

SCENIHR 2015

ICNIRP

IEEE

WHO

SSM

EMF Scientist

5G Appeal EU

Theodoros Samaras

Norbert Leitgeb

Anssi Auvinen

Heidi Danker Hopfe

Kjell Hansson Mild

Mats Olof Mattsson

Hannu Norppa

James Rubin

Maria Rosaria Scarfi

Joachim Schüz

Zenon Sienkiewicz

Olga Zeni

SSM 2016

ICNIRP

IEEE

WHO

EMF Scientist

5G Appeal EU

Anke Huss

From 2020

Clemens Dasenbrock

Emilie van Deventer

Eric van Rongen

Heidi Danker-Hopfe

Lars Klaeboe

Maria Rosaria Scarfi

Martin Röösli

Table 1: Many persons in expert groups at the WHO, the EU commission and in Sweden are current or former

members in ICNIRP, and other expert groups, with no representative from the scientific community with opinions as

expressed in EMF Scientist Appeal or 5G Appeal. For further details see ICNIRP [72,135,136,140,141,143-146],

IEEE [137,145], EU [86,138,145], SSM [71,142], EMF Scientist Appeal [24], the 5G Appeal EU [139].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 255

2. Evaluating Organizations

2.1. ICNIRP

ICNIRP is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in

Germany that has obtained major influence world-wide on

health risks from RF radiation through its recommended

guidelines for limiting RF radiation exposure [48, 53, 54].

These guidelines are recommended by the EU Commission,

the WHO and are adopted by the majority of the countries

around the globe.

ICNIRP was started in 1992 as an “independent

commission”. It is registered in Germany and located in

Munich at the same address as the German Federal Office for

Radiation Protection [55].

ICNIRP maintains the same attitude to health effects from

RF-radiation as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE) and its standards setting committee, the

International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES).

This committee and ICNIRP, are both standard setting

organizations for frequencies between 0 Hz to 300 GHz.

ICES have many industry and military representatives

among its members [56]. ICES within IEEE also sets limits

for RF exposure which are in line with the ICNIRP opinion

that there are only immediate thermal effects and no effects

below those that cause immediate effects due to increased

temperature. This perception was established in the 1950’s

and a decade later used when the first thermal based standard

for radiofrequency radiation was set in the USA in 1966 [57].

Several members of ICNIRP are also present or former

members of IEEE/ICES [58].

The biophysicist Michael Repacholi from Australia was

ICNIRP’s first chairman and he is since 1996 an emeritus

member [59]. Experts from various countries constitute the

“main commission” of ICNIRP; a chair, a vice chair and 11

other members. Further scientists are elected by this

commission to the scientific expert group (SEG). New and

continuing members to the commission are elected by the

members of the main commission. Nominations can be

submitted by the members of the Commission itself, the

Executive Council of IRPA (the International Radiation

Protection Association) or the IRPA Associate Societies. It

seems as if no scientist that is critical to the thermal paradigm

on RF radiation risks, advocated by ICNIRP, is elected as a

member of the Commission.

ICNIRP published its first guidelines on RF radiation in 1998

[53]. These were updated in 2009 with no changes [54]. Only

short-term thermal (heating) effects were acknowledged to

form the basis for the exposure guidelines. Long-term

exposure and non-thermal effects were considered not to be

established, thus excluding a large number of peer-reviewed

scientific studies on negative health and biological effects

from RF-radiation below the ICNIRP guidelines. In 2020

ICNIRP [48] published new guidelines on health risks based

on documents from: the WHO 2014 draft, the EU SCENIHR

2015 report and the Swedish SSM reports 2015, 2016 and

2018.

It should be noted that not one of these five reviews has been

published after peer-review in a scientific journal. Critique

from the scientific community has been expressed against

several of these reviews but has been ignored. Furthermore,

these older documents do not cover the most recent research.

In the following comments are given to these three reviews

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 256

since the ICNIRP 2020 is based on these older evaluations

with no new and further evaluation of its own [48].

2.2 The WHO Public Consultation Environmental

Health Criteria Document, 2014

The WHO EMF Project, responsible for the 2014 document,

was established in 1996. ICNIRP’s chairman Michael

Repacholi suggested in 1995 that WHO should start the EMF

Project [60]. In 1995, while Repacholi still was chairman of

ICNIRP, he became the head of the WHO International

Electromagnetic Fields Project, and then head of the WHO

EMF Project in 1996 [61], where he remained until 2006

[62]. A close colloboration between WHO and ICNIRP was

initiated. In November 1998 the WHO EMF Project

commenced a process aimed at the harmonization of EMF

standards worldwide according to the ICNIRP guidelines

[63]. Benefits to trade was given as one main argument to

this specific project. The 100 times lower limits (compared

to ICNIRP) in Eastern Europe were described as problematic

[63].

The possibility of industry funding to the project was

arranged already before the start of the project: “In 1995

WHO reached agreement consistent with these policies with

Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH), Australia to collect funds

on behalf of the EMF Project. A memorandum of

understanding allowed RAH to collect funds from

government, professional associations and industry.” [64].

This financial situation was ended in 2006 after disclosure

by investigating journalists that showed that approximately

half of the funding for the WHO EMF Project came from

telecom industry organizations; GSM Association, Mobile

Manufacturers Forum (MMF) and Forschungsgemeinschaft

Funk e.V. (FGF) [65, 66].

Since 2006 the project leader of the WHO EMF project is

Emilie van Deventer, an electrical engineer and longtime

member of the industry organization IEEE [67]. She is the

founder and former chairperson of the IEEE Joint Chapter on

Electromagnetics and Radiation [68]. Her background is in

“electromagnetic characterization of high-speed circuits for

telecommunications applications, computationa

electromagnetics (RF frequency and time domain

techniques), electromagnetic compatibility, antenna

modelling and design” and does not include medical training

[69, 70]. She is the WHO EMF Project observer at the

ICNIRP’s main commission as well as a member of the SSM

expert group from 2010 to 2017 [60, 71, 72].

The WHO EMF Project is in principle synonymous with

ICNIRP. The same individuals that propose the ICNIRP

guidelines are also acting as experts evaluating hazards from

RF radiation on behalf of the WHO. This kind of double

position situation is a potential conflict of interest according

to the Ethical Board of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,

Sweden 2008 (Dnr 3753-2008-609).

In 2005-2006 the personnel at the WHO EMF Project were

Michael Repacholi, Emilie van Deventer, Chiyoi Ohkubo

[62], Richard Saunders [73], Eric van Rongen and Lisa

Ravenscroft [60]. All except Ravenscroft are current or

former members of ICNIRP. In fact, at a meeting at WHO,

Geneva in March 2017, Dr Maria Neira, at that time Director

for Public Health and Environment at WHO, stated that

ICNIRP is an Non-Governmental organization (NGO) with

an official relationship with WHO that “helps us a lot in our

analyses” and their members work as WHO's experts [74].

The WHO EMF Project has for many years been criticized

for its collaboration with the industry; electrical, military and

telecom [75].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 257

A draft of a Monograph on health effects of electromagnetic

field (EMF) exposure was released by WHO in 2014 [76]. It

was open for public consultation until December 31, 2014,

but has never been published as a final version and it is

unclear why it was never finalized.

Out of the six experts in the WHO core group responsible for

the draft, four were active members and one was a former

member of ICNIRP [74], a fact that illustrates that WHO

continues to be almost identical with ICNIRP, see Table 1.

Many critical comments were sent to the WHO. One

example is the “No confidence” letter sent by The

BioInitiative Working Group in December 2016 to the WHO

EMF Program Manager that concluded that the experts

writing the WHO draft were to a large extent ICNIRP

members.

“The BioInitiative Working Group urges the World Health

Organization to make changes to the WHO RF EHC

[Environmental Health Criteria] 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 (1, 2)

undermining credibility of the process and ensuring doubt

about conclusions.” [77].

This letter was followed by another letter from the

BioInitiative Working Group in January 2017 including

suggestion of experts to replace present persons in the Core

Group as well as Additional Experts [78].

A call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic

Field Exposure was made by the International EMF Scientist

Appeal.

“By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfil its role as

the preeminent international public health agency…. The

WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP

guidelines to encourage international harmonization of

standards… It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP

guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-

intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public

health.” [24].

In total forty-seven NGOs also submitted a critical statement

regarding the WHO draft on December 15, 2014. The WHO

draft was criticized for the absence of pluralism among the

selected experts, for biased reporting of scientific results and

the “promiscuity between the WHO and ICNIRP.” [79].

A press release was furthermore issued on February 24, 2017

by the European coordination of organizations for an EMF

exposure regulation which truly protects public health. They

stated that “The Conflict of Interest Scandal is repeating

itself in the WHO” [80].

In a letter of concern dated March 1, 2017 the Russian

National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

wrote to the WHO: “It has just come to our attention that the

WHO RF Working group consists mainly from present and

past ICNIRP members.….the private self-elected

organization ICNIRP, similar as majority of the current

WHO RF WG [Working Group] members, does not

recognize the non-thermal RF effects,…” [81].

In 2016 at a seminar at SSM in Stockholm Emilie van

Deventer said that they had received 700 comments on the

draft including references to “at least 300 papers that we had

missed” [82].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 258

It is unclear how WHO reacted to the critique. The

Monograph is still unfinished. Instead the WHO has called

for a new systematic review of this topic.

It should be noted that WHO in 2014 issued the following

statement: “THIS IS A DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR

PUBLIC CONSULTATION. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE

OR CITE.” Nevertheless, this WHO Monograph draft from

2014, issued by a group dominated by ICNIRP members,

was used as a basis for the ICNIRP guidelines 2020.

2.3. The European Commission SCENIHR opinion 2015

In 2015 the European Commission’s expert group on

electromagnetic fields, SCENIHR, released its report

“Opinion on potential health effects of exposure to

electromagnetic fields (EMF)” [49]. It was an update of the

previous SCENIHR Opinions of 19 January 2009 “Health

effects of exposure to EMF” and 6 July 2009 “Research

needs and methodology to address the remaining knowledge

gaps on the potential health effects of EMF” [83].

SCENIHR is one of three “Independent Scientific

Committees” that provide the EU Commission, and through

the Commission the other European institutions, with

scientific advice regarding consumer safety, public health

and the environment [84]. The Committee is also supposed

to “…draw the Commission's attention to the new or

emerging problems which may pose an actual or potential

threat”.

According to the Commission decision 2008, article 15 [85],

the experts “…shall undertake to act independently of any

external influence” and “shall make a declaration of

commitment to act in the public interest and a declaration of

interests indicating either the absence or existence of any

direct or indirect interest which might be considered

prejudicial to their independence”. However, this committee

has a history of being unbalanced in terms of representation

from both sides of the scientific controversy on RF radiation.

No representatives from the scientific community that are of

the opinion that there is increasing evidence of harmful

effects have participated; at least no person has declared

other opinion than the ICNIRP view.

The 2007 SCENIHR [86] working group’s chair was Anders

Ahlbom from Sweden, ICNIRP commission member 1996-

2008 and contributing to the ICNIRP guidelines 1998. Mats-

Olof Mattsson, from Sweden, was one of the groups’ three

experts.

The 2009 SCENIHR [87] working group was identical to the

2007 group, but Mats-Olof Mattsson, from 2013 member of

ICNIRP SEG, replaced Ahlbom as chair [88]. Eric van

Rongen, member of ICNIRP and ICES as well as working

with the WHO EMF Project, was now among the external

experts [87].

The 2015 SCENIHR working group was made up of

Theodoros Samaras and Norbert Leitgeb (retired) and ten

additional external experts [89]. Of the ten external experts,

four are former or present members of ICNIRP main

commission or SEG (Anssi Auvinen, Mats-Olof Mattsson,

Maria Rosaria Scarfi and Zenon Sienkiewicz). Both

Mattsson and Samaras are members of ICES/ IEEE [56].

2.3.1 Main conclusions 2015

The quotes in this section are from the SCENIHR report

2015 [49]:

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 259

“Overall, the epidemiological studies on mobile phone RF

EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain

tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk

for other cancers of the head and neck region.…The results

of cohort and incidence time trend studies do not support an

increased risk for glioma while the possibility of an

association with acoustic neuroma remains open.”

Other effects from RF-radiation such as different health

symptoms, also known as the microwave syndrome [43],

neurological diseases and other health outcomes, were also

dismissed with various arguments. The conclusion of no

brain tumor risks from RF radiation relied upon several

studies with methodological shortcomings resulting in

underestimated risks, for instance the Danish cohort study

[90, 91], the UK Benson study [92] as well as the Cefalo

study [93], see below. Joachim Schüz, who was a member of

SCENIHR 2015 working group that drafted SCENIHR

2015, was also coauthor of these three studies [94].

Increased cancer risks in other epidemiological studies [7, 8,

14, 15, 16] were downplayed by SCENIHR [49] with

reference to a few brain tumor incidence trend reports, the

Danish cohort and a UK cohort:

“The fact that incidence rates of glioma and meningioma do

not rise in the age groups of highest mobile phone prevalence

provides evidence that common use of mobile phones is

unlikely to be associated with an increased risk of those brain

tumours. This is confirmed by the Danish cohort study that

rules out risks that would affect large segments of the

population. Evidence against an association also arises from

the large-scale UK million women study.”

2.3.2. Methodological issues

2.3.2.1. The Danish Cohort (2001, 2006, 2011): This study,

funded by Danish telecom operators, first published in 2001

[90] and last updated in 2011 [91], reported no increased

risks of tumors in the central nervous system. It was based

on 420,095 mobile phone private subscribers. This group’s

incidence of brain tumors was compared with the incidence

within the rest of the Danish population (control group).

However, there are severe methodological faults that led to

erroneous results:

• Inclusion only of mobile phone private subscribers in

Denmark between 1982 and 1995 in the exposure

group.

• Exclusion of the most exposed group, consisting of

200,507 corporate users of mobile phones [90]. They

were instead included in the unexposed control group if

not private subscribers.

• Users with mobile phone subscription after 1995 were

not included in the exposed group and were thus treated

as unexposed: “individuals with a subscription in 1996

or later were classified as non-users” [91].

• Actual exposure data is unknown and no analysis by

laterality (the side were the phone is hold in relation to

the position of the tumor) was performed.

• All users of cordless (DECT) phones were treated as

unexposed for that exposure although they were also

exposed to the same kind of RF radiation as from

mobile phone use. The Hardell group has shown that

use of cordless phones increases risk of glioma and

acoustic neuroma tumors [7, 8].

Professor Michael Kundi of the Medical University of

Vienna expressed the opinion that the Danish study is “the

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 260

most severely biased study among all studies published so

far” [95]. Certainly, there were severe methodological flaws.

The study [90, 91, 96] was regarded by IARC in the 2011

evaluation [9, 10] to be uninformative regarding cancer risks

due to serious exposure misclassification. However, it is

included by SCENIHR [49], WHO [76], SSM [97] and

ICNIRP as evidence of no risk [98, 99]. The statement by

SSM 2013 [97] that: “The Danish cohort studies make an

important contribution to the total assessment in the field.”

is remarkable taking the critique of the study that should have

been well known to the SSM expert panel. The many

shortcomings in the study were discussed in a peer-reviewed

article [100] concluding that: “After reviewing the four

publications on the Danish cohort study, one might rightly

wonder whether this cohort was initially set up to show no

increased risk.”

2.3.2.2. The Benson UK study (2013): This cohort study of

791,710 women in the Million Women Study was started

during 1996-2001 [92]. Data on mobile phone use was

collected at one time between 1999 and 2005, without

questions separating heavy users from light users. Mobile

phone use was based on the answers to a few questions posed

at the time when the women were recruited to the study:

"About how often do you use a mobile phone?", "Never, less

than once a day, or every day?” Those who did use a mobile

phone were also asked "for how long?". At the end of the

study in 2009, a random sample of participants were asked

two more questions about their mobile phone use, but these

answers were never used in the analyses. Use of cordless

(DECT) phone was not assessed. Due to limitations in the

study design, such as no comprehensive assessment of life-

time mobile phone use, the study is uninformative and should

not be used as scientific evidence of lack of cancer risk. In

fact the authors concluded that:

“The main limitation of the study is that mobile phone use

was reported at baseline and may have changed

subsequently. Almost all women who reported daily use of

mobile phones at baseline were still using a mobile phone at

least once a week when asked again 8.8 years later. However,

some women who reported not using a mobile phone at

baseline began use subsequently; and this might dilute our

estimates of relative risk towards the null” [92].

2.3.2.3. The CEFALO Study (2011): The CEFALO study on

brain tumor risk for children aged 7-19 using mobile phones

[93] is claimed in the SCENIHR 2015 report [49] to have

found no increased risk. The children in the study were

diagnosed with a brain tumor during 2004-2008. The study

showed several statistically non-significant increased odds

ratios (ORs). However, a press release issued by one of the

authors, Maria Feychting at the Karolinska Institute in

Stockholm, stated that “Reassuring results from first study

on young mobile users and cancer risk…The so called

CEFALO study does not show an increased brain tumor risk

for young mobile users.” [101]. She was vice chair of

ICNIRP 2012-2020, member of ICNIRP SEG 2000-2012,

and is currently SEG member since 2020. Maria Feychting

was also member of the WHO core group responsible for the

WHO 2014 draft. Martin Röösli, member of ICNIRP

Commission since 2016, the SSM expert group since 2010,

as well as member of the WHO 2014 external expert group,

was also coauthor of this study (corresponding author).

Martin Röösli also claimed in a press-release that the results

were reassuring of no risk [102].

The study has several shortcomings and one major

shortcoming is the assessment of RF exposure from cordless

phones that was not included in the total RF radiation

exposure. Furthermore, the scientists did not assess total

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 261

exposure from cordless phones (DECT). Instead the authors

analyzed “…ever used cordless phones, and the cumulative

duration and number of calls with cordless phones in the first

3 years of use.” This is a scientifically invalid method to

study risk associated with an agent [103]. Thereby four to

sixteen years of potential exposure were disregarded in the

study age group 7-19 years. It is most questionable since use

of the cordless phone increases by age.

This is more startling since no such time limit was made in

the questionnaire sent to the Ethical Board at Karolinska

Institute, Stockholm (DNR2005/1562-3). There were four

questions on use of a cordless phone (summary): 1. When

did you first start using a cordless phone? 2. How often did

[child] answer the cordless phone? 3. How often does [child]

speak on the cordless phone? 4. When [child] talks on the

cordless phone, which phrase fits the best? (about 1 min,

about 3 min, about 6 min, about 10 min or more).

No doubt even with these few questions it would have been

possible to assess lifetime cumulative use of the cordless

phones. According to the questions there is no reason or

possibility to limit to only the first three years of use.

Furthermore, it is not probable that a child would only use

the cordless phone for three years and then stop the habit. To

note is also an e-mail (personal communication) from Martin

Röösli to one of the authors (MN) on August 17, 2011 in

which he regarding cordless phones stated that “We also

asked about ever using it and we requested the age range that

they have used the phone”. No doubt with that information,

which was not given in the article, it would have been

possible to calculate whole lifetime cumulative exposure.

Thus, it is evident that limiting use to only first three years

would bias the results towards unity, particularly as children

tend to increase their phone use with increasing age, which

is also shown in the CEFALO study. In spite of this,

SCENIHR [49] gave the impression that all cordless phone

use was included by claiming that “Use of cordless phones

showed no increased OR (1.09; CI 0.81-1.45), not even in

the group of highest cumulative use.” This claim is most

misleading. Highest group for cumulative use available in

the study was only 70+ hours. Further, the authors

intentionally omitted the real highest users by limiting the

exposure to the first three years of use. It is remarkable that

this misleading claim in the SCENIHR report was written by

one of the authors of CEFALO (Joachim Schüz), who also

was coauthor of the Danish cohort and the Benson study.

In a comment, the Hardell group wrote [103]:

“Further support of a true association was found in the results

based on operator-recorded use [of mobile phones] for 62

cases and 101 controls, which for time since first

subscription > 2.8 years yielded [odds ratio] OR 2.15 (95%

[confidence interval] CI 1.07-4.29) with a statistically

significant trend (P = 0.001)….. We consider that the data

contain several indications of increased risk, despite low

exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study

design, analyses and interpretation”.

In fact, all ORs on mobile phone use were >1.0 according to

Table 2 in the article [93]. For both ipsilateral and

contralateral mobile phone use statistically significant

increased risks were obtained for highest group of

cumulative numbers of calls; OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.09-7.76

and OR = 4.82, 95 % CI = 1.21-19.24, respectively. For

central or unknown location a statistically significant

decreased risk was found based on low numbers. It should be

noted that there are missing numbers of cases and controls in

different strata in e.g. Table 5 in the article [93], no

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 262

explanation is given as we have discussed [103]. The

anatomical distribution for brain tumors in children differs

from adults [104]. Thus, there are more central and brain

stem tumors, facts not considered by Aydin et al. [93] In

children the distribution of RF radiation differs from adults

with larger part of the brain more exposed due to e.g. smaller

head and thinner bone [105]. Thus, the laterality analysis

should be interpreted with caution.

2.3.3. Critical comments on SCENIHR [49]

There were in total 186 critical comments submitted to EU

by different persons and organizations [106]. Less than 30

percent of these comments were taken into account, a few

yielding minor clarifications in the text but without changes

of the SCENIHR major conclusions. The BioInitiative

Group was among many others that expressed critical

comments to the SCENIHR: “In summary, the preliminary

SCENIHR conclusion that glioma risk is weaker now is not

scientifically justified. The only way that conclusion could

be reached by SCENIHR is to exclude critical studies that

present evidence to the contrary, i.e. studies that report the

risk of glioma (and acoustic neuroma) is stronger now than

in 2009” [107].

2.4. The reports from the Swedish Radiation Safety

Authority (SSM) 2015, 2016 and 2018 [50-52]

The expert group on electromagnetic fields at SSM was

created in June 2002. Between 2003 and 2010 it was called

the “Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields”.

During that period Anders Ahlbom, member of ICNIRP

main commission 1996-2008, and SCENIHR member 2007-

2009, was the head of the expert group and his colleague

Maria Feychting, longtime member of ICNIRP and member

of the WHO 2014 core group, was the group’s secretary.

From 2013 and until today, the expert group was renamed as

the “Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields”.

Between 2003 and 2019 the SSM group has published

thirteen reports in English on its webpage [71]. All reports

since 2003 have consistently refuted or ignored evidence of

health risks from non-thermal exposure in line with the views

by ICNIRP, the WHO and the SCENIHR.

Since the first report in 2003 until today around half of the

group’s members have also been present or previous ICNIRP

members. In consequence the conclusions have generally

been that there are no health risks below the limits

recommended by ICNIRP. No scientist critical to the

ICNIRP view has ever been part of this group. Here are some

examples of conclusions from the SSM reports (2015 –

2018) that are included as basis for the present ICNIRP

guidelines.

2.4.1. SSM 2015

“In terms of exposure from mobile phone base stations or

other RF-EMF transmitters, no new evidence has become

available indicating a causal link between exposure and

symptoms or Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)….

New studies on mobile phone use and tumours in the brain

using retrospective exposure assessment are in line with

previous research, which means that increased risks were

observed in some of the most extreme exposure categories.

However, it is not clear to what extent these risk estimates

are affected by recall bias… New studies on associations

between sperm quality and mobile phone use are of low

quality and cannot be used to evaluate a potential association

with RF-EMF exposure” [50].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 263

The 2015 SSM report raised the issue that recall bias might

have affected brain cancer risk estimates. However the study

by Momoli et al. [108] showed that recall bias did not affect

the risk of glioma in the Canadian component of the

Interphone study [14]. In addition, it should be noted that the

2020 ICNIRP guidelines [48] refer to recall bias in the case-

control studies of the Interphone study but do not mention

the analysis by Momoli et al. Also, as displayed below, recall

bias cannot explain the results in the Hardell group studies.

2.4.2. SSM 2016

“Most research in the past decade has been done into a

possible relation between mobile phone use and brain

tumours. Epidemiological studies have provided weak

indications for an association between frequent and long-

term use of a mobile phone and gliomas (malign tumours of

the brain tissue) and vestibular schwannomas (also called

acoustic neuromas, a benign tumour of the vestibulocochlear

nerve that connects the ear to the inner brain). The evidence

is not very clear and unequivocal, however. Altogether it

provides no or at most little indications for a risk for up to

approximately 15 years of mobile phone use” [51].

In a press release, at the time of the publication of the 2016

report, this Swedish authority claimed that the suspicion that

mobile phones or wireless networks could be a health risk to

humans or to the environment had become weaker during the

past 13 years since the first of the group’s report [109]. This

contrasted with the increasing scientific evidence of the

opposite [24]. In Table 2 results for meta-analysis of highest

cumulative use in hours of mobile phone use in case-control

studies is given and the results for acoustic neuroma are

given in Table 3. Clearly these results from the different

studies available in 2016 are in contrast to the statement by

SSM.

All

Ipsilateral

Ca/Co

95 % CI

Ca/Co

95 % CI

Interphone 2010 [14]

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h

210/154

1.40

1.03 – 1.89

100/62

1.96

1.22 – 3.16

Coureau et al 2014 [16]

Cumulative use >896 h

24/22

2.89

1.41 – 5.93

9/7

2.11

0.73 – 6.08

Hardell, Carlberg 2015 [7]

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h

211/301

2.13

1.61 – 2.82

138/133

3.11

2.18 – 4.44

Meta-analysis

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h*

445/477

1.90

1.31 – 2.76

247/202

2.54

1.83 – 3.52

*≥896 h used for Coureau et al.

Table 2: Numbers of exposed cases (Ca) and controls (Co) and odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI)

for glioma in case-control studies in the highest category of cumulative use in hours for mobile phone use, for

further details see [42].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 264

All

Ipsilateral

Ca/Co

95 % CI

Ca/Co

95 % CI

Interphone 2010 [15]

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h

77/107

1.32

0.88 – 1.97

47/46

2.33

1.23 – 4.40

Hardell et al. 2013 [8]

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h

27/301

2.40

1.39 – 4.16

19/133

3.18

1.65 – 6.12

Meta-analysis

Cumulative use ≥1,640 h

104/408

1.73

0.96 – 3.09

66/179

2.71

1.72 – 4.28

Table 3: Numbers of exposed cases (Ca) and controls (Co) and odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI)

for acoustic neuroma in case-control studies in the highest category of cumulative use in hours for mobile phone use,

for further details see [42].

2.4.3. SSM 2018

This annual report was the twelfth in this series and covered

studies published from October 2015 up to and including

March 2017. Oxidative stress effects reported below ICNIRP

guidelines was discussed but the relevance for human “direct

health effects” was claimed to be “unclear”. The conclusion

was that “No new health risks have been identified.” [52].

It is clear that the SSM expert group has not made a sound

and objective scientific evaluation of health risks associated

with RF radiation exposure. We note that SSM in April 2020

published a new report from the SSM expert group which

concluded: “The results of the research review give no

reason to change any reference levels [ICNIRP’s] or

recommendations in the field”. Of the ten members in the

scientific group five were present or past members of

ICNIRP [110].

3. ICNIRP 2020 Evaluation

Eric van Rongen, chair of the ICNIRP Commission 2016-

2020, claimed in a press release regarding the new ICNIRP

guidelines 2020 that the 1998 version was “conservative in

most cases” and “still provide adequate protection for current

technologies”. He also argued that: “The most important

thing for people to remember is that 5G technologies will not

be able to cause harm when these new guidelines are adhered

to” [111].

Many other incorrect statements were made in the recent

ICNIRP paper [48] contrary to an objective evaluation of the

available scientific evidence. In the following the section on

cancer is reviewed. That section claims:

“There is a large body of literature concerning cellular and

molecular processes that are of particular relevance to

cancer. Although there are reports of effects of

radiofrequency EMFs on a number of these endpoints, there

is no substantiated evidence of health-relevant effects

(Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda 2019)”.

Already in the first paragraph in the report evidence on

biological effects from RF radiation is dismissed without

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 265

scientific foundation. This continues regarding cancer risks.

Mostly not even references are given to the discussed studies,

or with erroneous references. The uninformed reader may

take the statements at face value and not understand that they

are, in fact, not correct.

3.1. Animal studies

Regarding animal studies yielding a promoting effect from

RF radiation [39, 40] ICNIRP states that “…interpretation of

these results and their applicability to human health [is]

difficult, and, therefore, there is a need for further research

to better understand these results”. In the next paragraph the

recent animal NTP studies [25, 26] and Ramazzini Institute

results [27] are disregarded, stating that “…no consistency

was seen across these two studies” and “within the context

of other animal and human carcinogenicity research (HCN

2014, 2016), their findings do not provide evidence that

radiofrequency EMFs are carcinogenic”.

On the contrary, as discussed above, animal studies indicate

that RF radiation may both promote and initiate cancer. In a

review, the Hardell group concluded that:

“There is clear evidence that RF radiation causes

cancer/tumor at multiple sites, primarily in the brain (glioma)

and head (acoustic neuroma). There is also evidence of an

increased risk of developing other tumor types. The results

are similar in both the NTP studies (19, 20) and the

Ramazzini Institute findings (34). Based on the IARC

preamble to the monographs, RF radiation should be

classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans”

[19].

In a note published by ICNIRP in 2018 it was claimed that

the histopathological evaluation in the NTP study was not

blinded as to exposure status [112]. This was rebutted by one

of those responsible for the NTP study [113]. However, it

seems to have had no impact on the ICNIRP evaluation [48].

ICNIRP claims that the animal studies “do not provide

evidence that radiofrequency EMFs are carcinogenic,” while

an independent peer review of the NTP data concluded that

this study provided ‘clear evidence of carcinogenic activity’,

see Table 4 in a comment on the NTP study [19]. A

comprehensive discussion of the ICNIRP evaluation was

published by Melnick as a correspondence with “focuses on

ICNIRP’s false claims about the methodology,

interpretation, and relevance of the National Toxicology

Program studies on cell phone radiation” [114]. This

included misleading statements by ICNIRP on e.g., the

pathology review procedure, rat survival rates, multiple

comparisons, but also excluding discussion of other end

points such as DNA strand breaks in the brain cells, and

increased incidence of cardiomyopathy. Melnick concluded

that “ICNIRP should promote precautionary advice for the

general public rather than trying to justify their decision to

dismiss findings of adverse health effects caused by RF-

EMFs and thereby retain their 20+ y-old exposure guidelines

that are based on protection against thermal effects from

acute exposure”. In the response, ICNIRP seemed not to

make a serious scientific rebuttal of the statements by

Melnick “except for one minor issue”, i.e., the description of

the NTP study as “whole of life” rather than “most of life”

[115].

3.2. Brain tumor risks from mobile phone use

Regarding epidemiological studies first a study by Martin

Röösli et al. [116] is cited by ICNIRP. Röösli is, as

mentioned earlier, both member of the ICNIRP commission,

the WHO 2014 external experts and the SSM experts. The

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 266

article has several limitations. The results on use of cordless

phones as risk factor for brain tumors are not discussed.

Regarding glioma risk all results on cumulative use of

wireless phones were not discussed and ipsilateral or

contralateral use in relation to tumor localization in the brain

were omitted from the meta-analyses. These results are

important and have shown a consistent pattern of increased

risk.

There were several other limitations in the article [116], such

as including the Danish cohort study [90] in the meta-

analyses. As discussed above, the study has severe errors of

exposure classification and was therefore evaluated to be

uninformative regarding carcinogenesis in the IARC 2011

evaluation [10] including Martin Röösli as one participating

member.

Regarding the thirteen country Interphone study on glioma

[14] and acoustic neuroma [15] ICNIRP concludes that the

studies do “…not provide evidence of an increased risk”,

which is not correct [48]. On the contrary regarding glioma

cumulative call-time of mobile phones ≥1,640 h resulted in

OR = 1.40, 95 % CI = 1.03–1.89, increasing to OR = 1.87,

95% CI = 1.09–3.22 for glioma in the temporal lobe, the most

exposed part of the brain. Ipsilateral mobile phone use

yielded OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22–3.16 for all glioma,

cumulative use ≥1,640 h. Furthermore, a statistically

significant increased risk for glioma was seen in the group

2–4 years for regular use, with 1–1.9 years use as reference

category, OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.16–2.41, see Appendix 2

[14]. The highest OR was seen in the 10+ years category for

regular use, OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.43–3.31.

In parts of Interphone, RF radiation dose was estimated as

total cumulative specific energy (TCSE; J/kg) absorbed at

the tumor's estimated center [117]. The risk increased with

increasing TCSE 7+ years before diagnosis, OR = 1.91, 95%

CI = 1.05 - 3.47 (p-trend = 0.01) in the highest quintile.

Comparing with glioma in other parts of the brain, increased

ORs were found for tumors in the most exposed part of the

brain in those with 10+ years of mobile phone use, OR =

2.80, 95% CI = 1.13 - 6.94.

Similar results were reported by Grell et al. [118]:

“we found a statistically significant association between the

intracranial distribution of gliomas and the self-reported

location of the phone…Taken together, our results suggest

that ever using a mobile phone regularly is associated with

glioma localization in the sense that more gliomas occurred

closer to the ear on the side of the head where the mobile

phone was reported to have been used the most”.

Canadian data from the Interphone Study were evaluated

separately [108]. For glioma, when comparing those in the

highest quartile of use (>558 lifetime hours) to those who

were no regular users, the OR was 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2 - 3.4.

After adjustment for selection and recall biases somewhat

higher OR was found, 2.2, 95 % CI = 95% CI = 1.3 - 4.1,

indicating that such bias did not cause the results.

Also for acoustic neuroma, the Interphone study yielded

statistically significant increased risk. Thus, ipsilateral

cumulative mobile phone use > 1,640 hours gave OR = 2.33,

95 % CI = 1.23-4.40 [15].

Regarding the Hardell group studies ICNIRP [48] writes:

“…a set of case-control studies from the Hardell group in

Sweden report significantly increased risks of both acoustic

neuroma and malignant brain tumors already after less than

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 267

five years since the start of mobile phone use, and at quite

low levels of cumulative call time.” No reference is given to

the studies, indicating they have not been seriously

evaluated. ICNIRP’s writing is not consistent with what the

studies reported. In the shortest latency time >1- 5 years

period overall mobile phone use yielded for glioma OR = 1.2,

95 % CI = 0.98-1.5 increasing to OR = 2.3, 95 % CI = 1.6-

3.4 in the latency period > 20 years (p trend = 0.01). Similar

results were found for cordless phones although based on

low numbers in the longest latency period. The lowest

quartile of cumulative wireless phone use gave OR = 1.2, 95

% CI = 0.9-1.4 increasing to OR = 2.0, 95 % CI = 1.6-2.6 in

the fourth quartile (p trend < 0.0001) [7]. Thus, as the

published results show no statistically significant increased

risk was found in total in the shortest latency group contrary

to what ICNIRP stated, although somewhat higher risk was

found for ipsilateral use.

For acoustic neuroma, the Hardell group reported use of

wireless phone (mobile and/or cordless phone) with latency

time >1-5 years in total OR = 1.2, 95 % CI = 0.8-1.6

increasing to OR = 4.4, 95 % CI = 2.2-9.0 (p trend = 0.003)

for latency > 20 years [8]. The risk increased with cumulative

use of wireless phone; first quartile OR = 1.2, 95 % CI = 0.8-

1.7 and fourth quartile OR = 2.2, 95 % CI =1.5 – 3.4, p trend

= 0.03. Thus, the results were similar as for glioma. These

results were dismissed by ICNIRP.

In addition, ICNIRP claims that the Hardell group results

may be caused by recall bias. For meningioma no statistically

significant increased risk was found in the same study. Using

meningioma cases as “controls” (the comparison entity) still

yielded statistically significant increased risk for glioma and

mobile phone use; ipsilateral use OR = 1.4, 95 % CI = 1.1-

1.8, contralateral OR = 1.0, 94 % CI = 0.7-1.4 and for

cordless phone use ipsilateral OR = 1.4, 95 % CI = 1.1-1.9,

contralateral OR = 1.1, 95 % CI = 0.8-1.6 [7]. Similar results

were found for acoustic neuroma using meningioma cases as

the comparison group [8]. These results clearly show that the

increased risks for glioma and acoustic neuroma were not

caused by recall bias.

The CERENAT study by Coureau et al. [16] was omitted by

ICNIRP. The study strengthened the evidence of increased

risk for glioma associated with mobile phone use. Life-long

cumulative duration ≥896 h gave OR=2.89, 95% CI 1.41 -

5.93 for glioma. Number of calls ≥18,360 gave OR=2.10,

95% CI 1.03 - 4.31. Higher risks were obtained for the

highest exposed area, (temporal tumor), as well as

occupational and urban mobile phone use. The Danish cohort

study on mobile phone use with serious methodological

limitations was however discussed in ICNIRP 2020, adding

to the no-risk paradigm.

Furthermore, ICNIRP claims that “Studies of other types of

tumors have also not provided evidence of an increased

tumor risk in relation to mobile phone use. Only one study is

available on mobile phone use in children and brain tumor

risk. No increased risk of brain tumors was observed.” This

is yet another incorrect statement [93]. The CEFALO study,

as discussed previously, showed increased risks in spite of

methodological shortcomings.

3.3. Thyroid cancer

In 2016 the Hardell group published increasing incidence of

thyroid cancer in the Nordic countries especially during the

last two decades [119]. The thyroid gland is a target organ

for RF radiation from smartphones, which was discussed as

an etiologic factor. A case-control study on mobile phone use

suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer associated

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 268

with long-term use [120]. The same material was used to

study genotype-environment interaction between single

nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) and mobile phone use

[121]. The study showed that mobile phone use increased the

risk for thyroid cancer when genetic variants were present

within some genes. It was concluded that pathways related

to DNA repair may be involved in the increased risk. The

study was published online 6 December 2019, that is well

before the ICNIRP 2020 publication. ICNIRP omitted

completely to discuss the increasing incidence of thyroid

cancer and the association with mobile phone use. The

statement by ICNIRP of no risk for other tumor types is not

correct. The increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the

Nordic countries is confirmed in our recent publication

[122].

3.4. Brain tumor incidence

Another example by ICNIRP that misguides the reader is the

statement “trends in brain cancer incidence rates from a large

number of countries or regions…have not found any increase

in the incidence since mobile phones were introduced.” This

is not correct. Philips et al. [123] reported a statistically

significant increasing incidence of glioblastoma multiforme

in UK during 1995-2015. Similar results were published

from USA [124]. In Sweden, the Hardell group published

increasing rates of brain tumors based on the Swedish

National Inpatient Register and the Causes of Death Register

[125]. The same group also published an increasing

incidence of brain tumors in the Swedish Cancer Register

[126]. ICNIRP seems to have overlooked facts that would

contradict their claim that the results showing brain tumor

risk are “not consistent with trends in brain cancer trends”.

3.5. Transmitters, base stations and cancer

According to ICNIRP, studies on exposure to environmental

RF radiation “have not provided evidence of an increased

cancer risk either in children or in adults”. No references to

that statement are given. In a review by Khurana et al. [127]

two of three studies reported increased incidence of cancer

at a distance < 350 m [128] or < 400 m [129] from a base

station. Dode et al. [130] reported increased cancer mortality

in an area within 500 m from a base station in Belo

Horizonte, Brazil. A study from Taiwan found a statistically

significant increased risk of all neoplasms in children with

higher-than-median RF radiation exposure to mobile phone

base stations [131]. A cause-effect relationship between RF

radiation in occupational and military settings, mainly

communication equipment and radar, and hematolymphatic

malignancies was reported by Peleg et al. [18]. They

concluded that available research “make a coherent case for

a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as

a human carcinogen (IARC group 1)”. DNA damage and

oxidative stress were associated with living in a vicinity of

base stations in a study from India which is also of interest

in this context [132]. It would have been pertinent for

ICNIRP to review the literature.

There are also studies showing increased risk for childhood

leukemia from RF transmitters. One of the authors of the

ICNIRP 2020 guidelines, commission member Martin

Röösli, stated at a seminar organized by SSM in 2016 that

until 2003 all but one results on transmitters had shown

increased risk for childhood leukemia: “it was quite

impressive that [for] almost all the studies for different type

of leukemias basically they reported significantly increased

risk. So it was not a random sample of risk estimates. All but

one risk estimates were above 1” [133]. This is in obvious

contrast to the claim in ICNIRP 2020.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 269

4. Conflicts of Interests

The conclusion by ICNIRP is not objective and lacks

scientific credibility according to a research report that

investigated ICNIRP commissioned by two European

Parliament Members published in June 2020 [58]. Industry

funding has been found to influence the results on research

on RF radiation and health effects. However, ICNIRP does

not take this into account although ICNIRP members

themselves have reported that industry-funded scientific

research seems to influence the results by reporting less

findings showing adverse health effects of EMF compared to

independent research [134].

The composition of ICNIRP is very one-sided according to

the EU report [58]:

“ICNIRP has been, and is still, dominated by physical

scientists… ..As one can read in the 45 portraits of the

members of the ICNIRP commission and of the Scientific

Expert Group (SEG), they all share the same position on the

safety issues: non-ionising radiation poses no health threats

and the only effects it has are thermal”.

The EU report [58] pointed to the fact that ICNIRP’s

chairman Eric van Rongen, in 2016 invited the industry

organization ICES to comment and thereby influence the

upcoming ICNIRP 2020 guidelines [48]. The report

concludes that it is:

“clear from ICES minutes that ICNIRP worked very closely

with IEEE/ICES on the creation of the new RF safety

guidelines that were published in March 2020. And this

implies that large telecom-companies such as Motorola and

others, as well as US military, had a direct influence on the

ICNIRP guidelines, which are still the basis for EU-policies

in this domain”.

The EU report [58] also highlights several ICNIRP experts’

financial ties to the industry. As described in that report, it

should be noted that for example the European Food and

Safety Authority (EFSA) considers conflict of interests as

“any situation where an individual has an interest that may

compromise or be reasonably perceived to compromise his

or her capacity to act independently and in the public interest

in relation to the subject of the work performed at EFSA”.

Apart from the telecom industry funding of the WHO EMF

project, while it was led by ICNIRP’s first chairman Michael

Repacholi [74] (1996-2006), the EU report documents that

“the majority of ICNIRP-scientists did perform research

partly funded by industry”.

As cited in the EU Report [58], Professor David Carpenter,

Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Albany,

USA, considers the “perversion that can result due to

conflicts of interests” to be “one of the greatest problems in

scientific discovery…When funding for scientists comes

from an organization or corporation with desires to present a

clean bill of health to the public, there is strong motivation

to give the funder what they want, if only to continue receipt

of funding.”

To act both on behalf of ICNIRP to set guidelines supposed

to protect against harmful health effects of RF radiation, and

at the same time evaluate the health risks representing other

organizations, may constitute a conflict of interest, i.e.

according to the opinion of the Ethical board of the

Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Many of the

ICNIRP commission and SEG members act on behalf of

several organizations thereby evaluating their own ICNIRP

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 270

guidelines validity on behalf of other organizations. This

kind of conflict of interest adds to those in terms of telecom

funding and connection to ICES, see Table 1 [24, 71, 72, 86,

135-146].

5. Guidelines for RF Radiation Exposure

The new ICNIRP 2020 guidelines were developed with 5G

in mind, especially considering frequencies that are higher to

the presently used mobile phone communications. ICNIRP

recognizes citizens’ concerns regarding safety of 5G,

however the new guidelines show no reduction of safety

limits. The premise for safeguarding human health has

remained the same – to avoid thermal effects. ICNIRP’s

2020 guidelines [48] are based, like in 1998 [53], only on

thermal effects, i.e. the RF radiation from mobile

communications devices can be high as long as it causes no

tissue heating. This may be problematic for mm waves as the

radiation can cause heating effects on the surface of the skin.

A systematic review on 5G safety limits based on thermal

dose concluded that: “The results also show that the peak-to-

average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council

on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to

permanent tissue damage after even short exposures,

highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure

guidelines” [147]. Furthermore, some organs are more

susceptible to RF radiation damage so local dosimetry is

more appropriate for characterizing organ-specific risk [10].

Currently the mobile communications reside on frequencies

up to 2,600 MHz band, with some minor exceptions beyond

that frequency. 5G frequencies are expected to be using

bands all over the higher radiofrequency spectrum, including

previous 2G and 3G bands. Main 5G frequencies, however,

will be at 3.4 to 4.2 GHz. Later, millimeter waves will also

be deployed to provide 5G services, these are expected to

reside at frequencies of 24-28 and 39 GHz. Millimeter wave

base stations are expected to cover mainly high public

density areas, such as city squares, transportation hubs,

business and shopping centers and other public areas.

With the new reference levels [48] ICNIRP differentiates

whole body exposure and exposure to small areas of the body

introducing two separate classes of reference levels. ICNIRP

grants higher exposure when assessing compliance by

reference values; basic restrictions however have remained

the same. ICNIRP claims, that this is because of better

scientific understanding with respect to the 1998 guidelines.

In Table 4 we compare ICNIRP reference levels between the

1998 [53] and the 2020 guidelines [48]. The calculated

values are for arbitrary frequencies per each designated band;

mobile communications frequency bands differ from region

to region. Table 4 characterizes bands used in most European

countries.

In their 1998 guidelines, at frequencies over 10 MHz, the

reference levels are based on electric and magnetic field

strengths for the whole-body SAR basic restrictions, derived

by computer simulations and experimental data [53]. The

2020 guidelines introduce reference levels for local exposure

[48]. In 2020 whole body reference levels, the averaging

time has been increased from 6 min to 30 min, which

ICNIRP argues is to better match the time taken for body

core temperature to rise [48].

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 271

Frequency (MHz)

Example usage

ICNIPR 1998 [53]

reference level, 6 min

ICNIPR 2020 [48]

reference levels, whole

body exposure, 30 min

ICNIPR 2020 [48]

reference levels, local

exposure, 6 min

800

LTE

18.2

900

GSM, UMTS

4.5

20.1

1,800

GSM

36.6

1,900

DECT

9.5

38.3

2,100

UMTS

2,400

WiFi 2G

2,600

LTE

3,500

5G, WiMax

5,500

WiFi 5G

26,000

30.9

Table 4: Comparison of ICNIRP 1998 and 2020 reference levels across common mobile communication

frequencies, time averaged (W/m²).

The ICNIRP 2020 [48] reference levels are based on time

averaged exposure over 6 min or 30 min, see Table 4.

However, supra-additive effects between pulses from

different RF radiation sources may give much higher peak

radiation from short time pulses than the power density

average. Using time averaging in reference values, as in the

ICNIRP guidelines, definitely underestimates the risk.

Year

Power Density Limit

(μW/m2)

Name

Description

1966

100,000,000

ANSI C95.1 [149]

Based on thermal effects and 0.1-hour (or 6 minute)

averaging time.

1991

10,000,000

ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991

[150]

Based on thermal effects.

1996

10,000,000

5,800,000

FCC [151]

USA: 5,800,000 averaged over a 30-minute period (869

MHz), previously recommended in 1986 by NCRP;

10,000,000 for PCS frequencies (1.85-1.99 GHz).

1998

10,000,000

9,000,000

4,500,000

ICNIRP [53]

10,000,000 for 2–300 GHz

9,000,000 for 1800 MHz and

4,500,000 for 900 MHz averaged over 6 min.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 272

Table 5: Guidelines by different organizations for radiofrequency radiation in μW/m2.

In a recent review, average exposure limit was suggested to

be considerably lower, 0.1 V/m; 26.5 µW/m2 [148]. This

guideline is comparable with the BioInitative Report from

2012 [44] with a scientific benchmark of 30-60 µW/m2, and

for chronic exposure to sensitive persons and children 3-6

µW/m2. The EUROPAEM EMF guidelines published

daytime RF radiation exposure to be 10-1,000 µW/m2,

nighttime 1-100 µW/m2, and for sensitive persons 0.1-10

µW/m2 [41]. All these guidelines by independent research

groups without conflicts of interest are very much lower than

the ICNIRP guidelines. These lower guidelines are aimed at

preventing health effects and hazards, Table 5 [41, 44, 48,

53, 54, 149-154].

6. Discussion

As a general rule ICNIRP, WHO, SCENIHR and SSM have

for many years dismissed available studies showing harmful

effects from non-thermal RF exposure and have based their

conclusions mainly on studies showing no effects. Results

showing risk are criticized, disregarded or not even cited

while studies showing no risks are accepted as evidence of

no risk in spite of severe methodological problems. Many

statements by these agencies are misleading and not correct.

They are easily rebutted by reading the relevant publications.

In fact, these activities are not in line with prevention of

health hazards. Previously the precautionary principle in

2001

1,000

Salzburg Resolution [152]

2001

100

EU Parliament STOA 2001

[153]

2002

New Salzburg

Precautionary Exposure

Limit Indoor [154]

Maximum indoor exposure recommendation for GSM

base stations proposed by the Public Health Office of the

Government of Salzburg.

2009

See 1998

ICNIRP [54]

Confirmation of ICNIRP 1998.

2012

3-6

Bioinitiative 2012

Recommendation [44]

2016

0,1-100

Europa EM EMF

Guidelines [41]

For frequencies between GSM 900 to WiFi 5,6 GHz

depending on sensitivity, night time or daytime exposure.

2020

400 MHz: 10,000,000

800 MHz: 18,200,000

1,800 MHz: 36,600,000

2,000 MHz: 40,000,000

6 GHz: 40,000,000

60 GHz: 26,600,000

300 GHz: 20,000,000

ICNIRP 2020 [48]

General public, local exposure, averaged over 6 min. For

whole body exposure see Table 4.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 273

cancer prevention was discussed exemplified by e.g.

asbestos, certain pesticides and RF radiation [155, 156]. It

was noted that cancer prevention is usually very cost-

effective. In a recent article we gave historical examples on

lost opportunities based on early warnings with RF radiation

as one more recent example [157].

In 2018 there was a call to dismantle ICNIRP and replace the

organization with independent scientists [158]: “ICNIRP’s

mandate to issue exposure guidelines needs to be seriously

questioned. ICNIRP is not independent of industry ties as it

claims… Its opinions are not objective, not representative of

the body of scientific evidence, but are biased in favor of

industry.”

The EU report investigating ICNIRP concluded in June 2020

that “for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely

on ICNIRP.” [58].

Our review reveals, with focus on cancer risks, an almost

systematic downplaying of health risks from RF radiation by

a group of persons that dominate the expert evaluations, see

Table 1. Many of them reappear in several of these

organizations’ expert groups and also in other groups not

described in this paper. One striking example is ICNIRP’s

chairman Eric van Rongen who also appeared in the WHO

core group of six experts 2014 as well as one of SSM’s eight

experts and SCENIHR’s nine experts in 2009 as well as

secretary of the Health Council of the Netherlands expert

group [159]. Another example is Maria Feychting, ICNIRP

member since 2000, who was one of WHO’s six core group

experts behind the WHO 2014 draft, secretary of the SSM

expert group evaluations 2003-2010, on the AGNIR (UK)

expert group from 2009 and a Norwegian expert group in

2012 [160]. A third example is Martin Röösli, member of

ICNIRP, the WHO external experts for the WHO draft 2014,

the SSM expert group since 2010 and a Swiss expert group

[99].

Our review also notes that there is a clear relationship

between ICNIRP and ICES, which is dominated by industry

representatives. Eric van Rongen, has been a member of

ICES since 2000, ICNIRP member since 2001 and elected

chair of ICNIRP in 2016, vice chair since 2020. From ICES

annual report 2016 it was reported that:

“The new ICNIRP Chairman and one of the new members

of the 14 member committee are also ICES members and

ICNIRP is now willing to discuss harmonization of the

exposure limits found in IEEE Stds C95.1TM-2005 and

C95.6TM-2002 and the ICNIRP Guidelines. At a June 2016

Mobile Manufacturers Forum Workshop in Ghent, Belgium,

the new ICNIRP Chairman, Dr. van Rongen, presented

“ICNIRP’s proposed HF guidelines” and extended an

invitation to ICES to comment on the proposed guidelines.

TC95 formed a 19 member task group to draft a document to

comment on the ICNIRP proposed guidelines. The document

was circulated to the TC95 membership for comment and a

final document submitted to ICNIRP in time for discussion

at the ICNIRP September meeting.” [56].

The TC 95 committee’s objective is “Development of

standards for the safe use of electromagnetic energy in the

range of 0 Hz to 300 GHz”. These standards are based on the

same scientifically invalid approach as the ICNIRP

guidelines. In this TC95 committee, in which many members

come from the military or the telecom industry, or are

consultants to them, ICNIRP’s chairman Eric van Rongen,

Michael Repacholi, ICNIRP’s first chairman and leader of

the WHO EMF project 1996-2006, Theodoros Samaras

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 274

(chairman SCENIHR) and Mats-Olof Mattson, Chairman

SCENIHR 2009 and member of ICNIRP, are also found.

All these expert groups dominated by ICNIRP consequently

reach similar conclusions that there are no health effects

below ICNIRP guidelines. No representative from the

scientific community that is of the opinion that there is

increasing evidence of health risks below the ICNIRP

guidelines, e.g. as expressed in the EMF Scientists Appeal

[24], has ever been a member of the expert groups at the

WHO, the EU, the SSM or ICNIRP. Certainly scientists who

do not discount evidence of health effects from exposure to

RF radiation that are observed at exposures below guideline

levels should be represented.

The resistance to the abundant and growing scientific

evidence on health risks is remarkable and not within the

realm of public health. This behavior, due to the ICNIRP

influence and dominant role in several other expert groups,

is detrimental to human health and leads to suffering and

even premature death that could have been prevented.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that in general there is lack

of persons with medical education and competence not only

in the evaluating bodies but also in several research teams

producing questionable results as exemplified in this text.

ICNIRP is not representative of the scientific community

since it does not include representatives from scientists that

agree there is evidence of harmful effects at levels well

below ICNIRPs limits although these scientists are in

majority in the scientific community [24].

7. Conclusion

ICNIRP’s conclusion [48] on cancer risks is: “In summary,

no effects of radiofrequency EMFs on the induction or

development of cancer have been substantiated.” This

conclusion is not correct and is contradicted by scientific

evidence. Abundant and convincing evidence of increased

cancer risks and other negative health effects are today

available. The ICNIRP 2020 guidelines allow exposure at

levels known to be harmful. In the interest of public health,

the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines should be immediately replaced

by truly protective guidelines produced by independent

scientists.

References

1. Balmori A, Hallberg Ö. The urban decline of the house

sparrow (Passer domesticus): A possible link with

electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology

and Medicine 26 (2007): 141-151.

2. Sharma VP, Kumar NR. Changes in honeybee

behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone

radiations. Current Science 98 (2010): 1376-1378.

3. Sharma VP, Singh HP, Batish DR, et al. Cell phone

radiations affect early growth of Vigna radiata (mung

bean) through biochemical alterations. Z Naturforsch,

C, J Biosci 65 (2010): 66-72.

4. Waldmann-Selsam C, Balmori-de la Puente A, Breunig

H, et al. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around

mobile phone base stations. Science Total Environ 572

(2016): 554-569.

5. Hardell L, Näsman A, Påhlson A, et al. Use of cellular

telephones and the risk for brain tumours: A case-

control study. Int J Oncol 15 (1999): 113-116.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 275

6. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Påhlson A, et al. Ionizing

radiation, cellular telephones and the risk for brain

tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 10 (2001): 523-529.

7. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless

phone use and the risk for glioma - Analysis of pooled

case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-

2009. Pathophysiology 22 (2015): 1-13.

8. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, et al. Pooled

analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma

diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile

and cordless phones. Int J Oncol 43 (2013): 1036-1044.

9. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, et al.

Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic

fields. Lancet Oncol 12 (2011): 624-626.

10. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing

radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic

fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 102

(2013): 1-460.

11. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled

analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular

and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain

tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup

Environ Health 79 (2006): 630-639.

12. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled

analysis of two case-control studies on the use of

cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign

brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol

28 (2006): 509-518.

13. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled

analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain

tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones

including living and deceased subjects. Int J Oncol 38

(2011): 1465-1474.

14. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in

relation to mobile telephone use: results of the

INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J

Epidemiol 39 (2010): 675-694.

15. INTERPHONE Study Group. Acoustic neuroma risk in

relation to mobile telephone use: results of the

INTERPHONE international case-control study.

Cancer Epidemiol 35 (2011): 453-464.

16. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, et al. Mobile phone

use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control

study. Occup Environ Med 71 (2014): 514-522.

17. Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of mobile phone and

cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford

Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation.

Biomed Res Int (2017): 9218486.

18. Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. Radio frequency

radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the

occupational/military setting. Environ Res 163 (2018):

123-133.

19. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Comments on the US National

Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology

and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body

radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice

exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at

1,900 MHz. Int J Oncol 54 (2019): 111-127.

20. CTIA fights San Francisco cell safety law again. The

mobile trade group has sued to block enforcement of a

law requiring warnings about phones. Available online:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2498464/ctia-

fights-san-francisco-cell-safety-law-again.html (2021).

21. Davis D. War-gaming cell phone science protects

neither brains nor private parts. Whenever a report pops

up questioning cell phone safety, a contrary report

stands ready in the wings to cast doubt about its

legitimacy. Available online:

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 276

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cell-phones-

braincancer_b_3232534?guccounter=1&guce_referrer

=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWx0ZXJuZXQub3JnLzIwM

TMvMDYvcm (2021).

22. Koppel T, Ahonen M, Carlberg M, et al.

Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone

base stations-a case comparison of one low and one

high exposure apartment. Oncol Lett 18 (2019): 5383-

5391.

23. Carlberg M, Hedendahl L, Koppel T, et al. High

ambient radiofrequency radiation in Stockholm city,

Sweden. Oncol Lett 17 (2019): 1777-1783.

24. EMFscientist. International Appeal: Scientists call for

protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field

exposure. Available online:

https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-

appeal (2021).

25. National Toxicology Program. NTP technical report on

the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N

mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation

at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and

CDMA) used by cell phones Available online:

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/m

arch/tr596peerdraft.pdf (2021).

26. National Toxicology Program. NTP technical report on

the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in

Hsd:Sprague Dawley sd rats exposed to whole-body

radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and

modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones.

NTP TR 595 Available online:

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/m

arch/tr595peerdraft.pdf (2021).

27. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al. Report of final

results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-

Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural

death to mobile phone radiofrequency field

representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station

environmental emission. Environ Res 165 (2018): 496-

503.

28. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, et al. Oxidative

mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity

radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med 35

(2016): 186-202.

29. Lai H, Singh NP. Single- and double-strand DNA

breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to

radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Int J Radiat

Biol 69 (1996): 513-521.

30. Ruediger HW. Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology 16 (2009): 89-

102.

31. Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, et al. Evaluation

of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency

radiation in male and female rats and mice following

subchronic exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen 61 (2020):

276-290.

32. Szmigielski S, Szudzinski A, Pietraszek A, et al.

Accelerated development of spontaneous and

benzopyrene-induced skin cancer in mice exposed to

2450-MHz microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics

3 (1982): 179-191.

33. Cleary SF, Liu LM, Merchant RE. Glioma proliferation

modulated in vitro by isothermal radiofrequency

radiation exposure. Radiat Res 121 (1990): 38-45.

34. Cleary SF, Liu LM, Merchant RE. In vitro lymphocyte

proliferation induced by radio-frequency

electromagnetic radiation under isothermal conditions.

Bioelectromagnetics 11 (1990): 47-56.

35. Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, et al. Long-term, low-

level microwave irradiation of rats.

Bioelectromagnetics 13 (1992): 469-496.

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 277

36. Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, et al. Lymphomas

in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900

MHZ electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res 147 (1997):

631-640.

37. Utteridge TD, Gebski V, Finnie JW, et al. Long-term

exposure of E-mu-Pim1 transgenic mice to 898.4 MHz

microwaves does not increase lymphoma incidence.

Radiat Res 158 (2002): 357-364.

38. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Koppel T, et al. High

radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Old Town: An

exposimeter study including the Royal Castle, Supreme

Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament.

Mol Clin Oncol. 6 (2017): 462-476.

39. Tillmann T, Ernst H, Streckert J, et al. Indication of

cocarcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated

radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse

model. Int J Radiat Biol 86 (2010): 529-541.

40. Lerchl A, Klose M, Grote K, et al. Tumor promotion by

exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields

below exposure limits for humans. Biochem Biophys

Res Commun 459 (2015): 585-590.

41. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, et al. EUROPAEM EMF

Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and

treatment of EMF-related health problems and

illnesses. Rev Environ Health 31 (2016): 363-397.

42. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, et al. Thermal and

non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-

ionizing radiation: An international perspective.

Environ Pollut 242 (2018): 643-658.

43. Carpenter DO. The microwave syndrome or electro-

hypersensitivity: historical background. Rev Environ

Health 30 (2015): 217-222.

44. BioInitiative 2012. Available online:

https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/ (2021).

45. Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao X-B, et al. Fetal radiofrequency

radiation exposure from 800-1900 MHz-rated cellular

telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in

mice. Sci Rep 2 (2012): 312.

46. Birks L, Guxens M, Papadopoulou E, et al. Maternal

cell phone use during pregnancy and child behavioral

problems in five birth cohorts. Environ Int 104 (2017):

122-131.

47. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields

(EMF). Standards and guidelines. Available online:

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/en/ (2021).

48. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to

electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health

Phys 118 (2020): 483-524.

49. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly

Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Opinion on

potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic

fields (EMF) Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emer

ging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf (2021).

50. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 2015:19. Recent

Research on EMF and Health Risk: Tenth Report from

SSM’s Council on Electromagnetic Fields 2015.

Availableonline:https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndighet

en.se/contentassets/ee7b28e0fee04e80bcaf84c24663a0

04/201519-recent-research-on-emf-and-health-risk---

tenth-report-from-ssms-scientific-council-on-

electromagnetic-fields-2015 (2021).

51. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 2016:15. Recent

Research on EMF and Health Risk: Eleventh Report

from SSM’s Scientific Council on Electromagnetic

Fieldes, 2016. Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/contentasse

ts/98d67d9e3301450da4b8d2e0f6107313/201615-

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 278

recent-research-on-emf-and-health-risk-eleventh-

report-from-ssms-scientific-council-on-

electromagnetic-fields-2016 (2021).

52. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 2018:09. Recent

Research on EMF and Health Risk: Twelfth Report

from SSM’s Scientific Council on Electromagnetic

Fields, 2017. Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/publikation

er/rapporter/stralskydd/2018/201809/ (2021).

53. 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 74 (1998): 494-522.

54. 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 97 (2009): 257-258.

55. ICNIRP: Aim, status & history. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/aim-status-

history/index%20.html (2021).

56. International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety.

ICES (SCC-39) Annual Report: 2015 – 2016. Available

online: https://www.ices-emfsafety.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/01/SCC39-Annual-Report-

2015-2016.pdf (2021).

57. Steneck NH, Cook HJ, Vander AJ, et al. The origins of

U.S. safety standards for microwave radiation. Science

208 (1980): 1230-1237.

58. Buchner K, Rivasi M. The International Commission

on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of

interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G.

Available online: https://www.michele-rivasi.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-

JUNE-2020_EN.pdf (2021).

59. ICNIRP: Emeritus members. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/emeritus-

members/index.html (2021).

60. The International EMF Project. Progress report June

2005-2006. Available online:

https://www.who.int/peh-

emf/publications/reports/IAC_Progress_Report_2005-

2006.pdf (2021).

61. Repacholi MH. WHO’s International EMF project and

results so far. Proceedings of the International

Conference on Non-Ionizing Radiation at UNITEN.

Available online: https://www.who.int/peh-

emf/meetings/archive/en/keynote1repacholi.pdf

(2003).

62. ICNIR. International conference on non-ionizing

radiation. 5G Transforming our future. 1-3 October

2019, Kuala Lumpur. Available online:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200920084041/https://

www.icnir.org/program/speakers/ (2021)

63. Repacholi MH. The purpose of WHO’s EMF standards

harmonization project. Available online:

https://www.who.int/peh-

emf/meetings/southkorea/en/Repacholi_project_.pdf?u

a=1 (2021).

64. The International EMF Project. Progress report 2001-

2002. Available online: https://www.who.int/peh-

emf/project/en/PR2001_2002.pdf (2021).

65. Microwave News. Repacholi: Half of WHO EMF

project funding came from industry. Available online:

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/repacholi-

half-who-emf-project-funding-came-industry (2021).

66. Microwave News. It’s Official: Mike Repacholi is an

industry consultant and he’s already in hot water.

November 13, 2006. Available online:

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 279

https://web.archive.org/web/20200423145810/https://

microwavenews.com/CT.html (2021).

67. Microwave News. Mike Repacholi leaves WHO

Available online:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170314232645/https://

microwavenews.com/july-10-2006 (2021).

68. Department of electrical and computer engineering. T

Emelie van Deventer. University of Toronto. Available

online:https://web.archive.org/web/20110727050438/

https://www.waves.utoronto.ca/prof/evd/evd.html

(2021).

69. Wu X, Eleftheriades GV, van Deventer E. Design and

characterization of single and multiple beam MM-

Wave circularly polarized substrate lens antennas for

wireless communication. Available online:

http://www.waves.toronto.edu/prof/gelefth/Backup_Ol

d/jpub/pdf/8.pdf (2021).

70. T. Emilie van Deventer's Homepage. Available online:

http://www.next-

up.org/pdf/EmilieVanDeventerCvBio.pdf (2021).

71. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Vetenskapligt råd

för elektromagnetiska fält. Scientfic Council on

Electromagnetic Fields. Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/om-

myndigheten/organisation/rad-och-

namnder/vetenskapligt-rad-for-elektromagnetiska-falt/

(2021).

72. ITU: Committed to connecting the world. van

DEVENTER Tahera Emilie. Available online:

https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-

Seminars/emf/201307/Pages/vanDEVENTERTaheraE

milie.aspx (2021).

73. Microwave News. Richard Saunders elected to ICNIRP

Available online:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170316221409/https://

microwavenews.com/october-29-2006 (2021).

74. Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency

radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). Int

J Oncol 51 (2017): 405-413.

75. Microwave News. WHO watch: Mike Repacholi & the

EMF charade. 5 July 2005. Available online:

https://microwavenews.com/docs/WHOWatch.pdf

(2021).

76. World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields

(EMF). An Environmental Health Criteria Monograph.

Available online: http://www.who.int/peh-

emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/ (2021).

77. BioInitiative letter to the International EMF Project.

Available online: http://www.bioinitiative.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/BIWG-final-draft-WHO-RF-

EHC-Monograph-team-composition.pdf (2021).

78. BioInitiative letter to the International EMF Project.

Available online: http://www.bioinitiative.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/01/BIWG-EHC-substitution-

letter.pdf (2021).

79. WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on

radiofrequency (RF) fields. The opinion of NGOs on

the preliminary draft on Radio Frequencies and health

effects. Available online:

https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/NGO-Opinion-WHO-

consultation.pdf (2021).

80. European coordination of organizations for an EMF

exposure regulation which truly protects public health.

The Conflict of Interest Scandal is repeating itself in the

WHO: European citizens' organisations uncover

conflicts of interest between the health and

radiofrequency WHO expert group and

telecommunications or electric companies. Available

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 280

online:http://www.peccem.org/DocumentacionDescar

ga/Plataforma-

Estatal/notasprensa/European.coordination.press.relea

se-february-2017.pdf (2021).

81. Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing

Radiation Protection. International EMF Project;

unbalanced WHO working group (WG) on evaluation

of health effects from radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

Available online: https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-

content/uploads/2017/03/2017_03_01_WHO.pdf

(2021).

82. Vimeo. Question to Emilie van Deventer, WHO, about

220 scientist’s appeal for better protection of the public

from EMF. Available online:

https://vimeo.com/170983540 (2021).

83. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly

Identified Health Risks, SCENIHR. Research needs

and methodology to address the remaining knowledge

gaps on the potential health effects of EMF. Available

online:https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/

04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_024.pdf (2021).

84. The Scientific Committees on Consumer Safety

(SCCS) Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)

Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks

(SCENIHR). Rules of procedure. Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_

committees/docs/rules_procedure_2013_en.pdf

(2021).

85. Commission Decision of 5 August 2008. Official

Journal of the European Union. Available online:

https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2

008:241:0021:0030:EN:PDF (2021).

86. European Commission. Scientific Committee on

Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

SCENIHR. Possible effects of Electromagnetic Fields

(EMF) on Human Health. Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sce

nihr/docs/scenihr_o_007.pdf (2021).

87. SCENIHR 2009. Health Effects of Exposure to EMF.

Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sce

nihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eEiZadf96

LIu4FiRYZSDBj5HwDckBCkD_muAh6v77UmH4Pe

UUktg0WAg (2021).

88. Mats Olof Mattsson. Declartion of Interests. Available

online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emer

ging/docs/doi_scenihrwg_mattsson_en.pdf (2021).

89. Declaration of interests, Scientific Committée on

Consumer Safety Health and Environmental Risks

Emerging and Newly Identified Risks. Available

online: https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-

content/uploads/2021/03/doi_scenihr_samaras_en.pdf

(2021).

90. Johansen C, Boice J, McLaughlin J, et al. Cellular

telephones and cancer--a nationwide cohort study in

Denmark. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (2001): 203-207.

91. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile

phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish

cohort study. BMJ 343 (2011): d6387.

92. Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, et al. Mobile phone use

and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers:

prospective study. Int J Epidemiol 42 (2013): 792-802.

93. Aydin D, Feychting M, Schüz J, et al. Mobile phone

use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a

multicenter case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 103

(2011): 1264-1276.

94. Swedish radiation protection foundation. Complaint to

the European Commission concerning the 2015

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 281

SCENIHR opinion on potential health effects of

exposure to electromagnetic fields. Available online:

https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-

content/uploads/2015/09/Complaint_European_Comm

ission_SCENIHR_2015-08-31.pdf (2021).

95. Microwave News. The Danish Cohort Study. The

Politics and Economics of Bias. Available online:

https://microwavenews.com/DanishCohort.html

(2021).

96. Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. Cellular telephone

use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish

cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (2006): 1707-1713.

97. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Research Report

number: 2013:19 ISSN: 2000-0456. Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/contentasse

ts/7f20edcd0b024940bca450d596568e30/201319-

eighth-report-from-ssms-scientific-council-on-

electromagnetic-fields (2021).

98. Hardell L, Nyberg R. Appeals that matter or not on a

moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation,

5G, for microwave radiation. Mol Clin Oncol 12

(2020): 247-257.

99. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Health risks from

radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be

assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncol

Lett 20 (2020): 15.

100. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Review of four

publications on the Danish cohort study on mobile

phone subscribers and risk of brain tumors. Rev

Environ Health 27 (2012): 51-58.

101. Karolinska Institutet. Reassuring results from first

study on young mobile users and cancer risk. Available

online:https://web.archive.org/web/20130203041836/

https://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=130&a=125250&l=

en&newsdep=130 (2021).

102. Universität Basel. Kein erhöhtes Hirntumorrisiko bei

Kindern und Jugendlichen wegen Handys. No

increased brain tumour risk in children and adolescents

using mobile phones. Available online:

https://www.unibas.ch/de/Aktuell/News/Uni-

Research/Kein-erh-htes-Hirntumorrisiko-bei-Kindern-

und-Jugendlichen-wegen-Handys.html (2021).

103. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L.

Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with

wireless phones: a commentary. Environ Health 10

(2011): 106.

104. Lannering B, Sandström P-E, Holm S, et al.

Classification, incidence and survival analyses of

children with CNS tumours diagnosed in Sweden 1984-

2005. Acta Paediatr 98 (2009): 1620-1627.

105. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY,

Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the

underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation,

especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med 31

(2012): 34-51.

106. European Commission: Results of the public

consultation on SCENIHR's preliminary opinion on

potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic

fields (EMF). Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_

committees/emerging/docs/followup_cons_emf_en.pd

f (2021).

107. BioInitiative: Exhibit B. Comment by Drs. Lennart

Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist, PhD and Michael

Carlberg, MSc. Available online:

https://www.bioinitiative.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/04/Exhibit-B-Hardell-

SCENIHR.pdf (2021).

108. Momoli F, Siemiatycki J, McBride ML, et al.

Probabilistic multiple-bias modeling applied to the

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 282

Canadian data from the Interphone study of mobile

phone use and risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic

neuroma, and parotid gland tumors. Am J Epidemiol

186 (2017): 885-893.

109. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.2016: Ny rapport:

allt svagare misstanke att mobilen kan orsaka cancer.

May 19, 2016. New report: weaker suspicion that

mobile phones can cause cancer. Available online:

https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-

content/uploads/2017/11/SSM_pressmeddelande_201

60519.pdf (2021).

110. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority: Recent research

on EMF and health risk - Fourteenth report from SSM’s

Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields, 2019.

Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/contentasse

ts/47542ee6308b4c76b1d25ae0adceca15/2020-04-

recent-research-on-emf-and-health-risk---fourteenth-

report-from-ssms-scientific-council-on-

electromagnetic-fields-2019.pdf (2021).

111. ICNIRP. New guidelines released by the International

Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection

(ICNIRP). Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/ICNI

RP_Media_Release_110320.pdf (2021).

112. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP Note: Critical

Evaluation of Two Radiofrequency Electromagnetic

Field Animal Carcinogenicity Studies Published in

2018. Health Phys 118 (2020): 525-532.

113. Melnick RL. Commentary on the utility of the National

Toxicology Program study on cell phone

radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human

health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at

minimizing the findings of adverse health effects.

Environ Res 168 (2019): 1-6.

114. Melnick RL. Regarding ICNIRP’s evaluation of the

National Toxicology Program’s carcinogenicity studies

on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Health Phys

118 (2020): 678-682.

115. ICNIRP, Response to Melnick (2020).

(Correspondence). Health Phys 118 (2020): 683-685.

116. Röösli M, Lagorio S, Schoemaker MJ, Schüz J,

Feychting M. Brain and salivary gland tumors and

mobile phone use: Evaluating the evidence from

various epidemiological study designs. Annu Rev

Public Health 40 (2019): 221-238.

117. Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, et al. Risk of

brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from

mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries.

Occup Environ Med 68 (2011): 631-640.

118. Grell K, Frederiksen K, Schüz J, et al. The intracranial

distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from

mobile phones: Analyses from the Interphone study.

Am J Epidemiol 184 (2016): 818-828.

119. Carlberg M, Hedendahl L, Ahonen M, et al. Increasing

incidence of thyroid cancer in the Nordic countries with

main focus on Swedish data. BMC Cancer 16 (2016):

426.

120. Luo J, Deziel NC, Huang H, et al. Cell phone use and

risk of thyroid cancer: a population-based case-control

study in Connecticut. Ann Epidemiol 29 (2019): 39-45.

121. Luo J, Li H, Deziel NC, et al. Genetic susceptibility

may modify the association between cell phone use and

thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study

in Connecticut. Environ Res 182 (2020): 109013.

122. Carlberg M, Koppel T, Hedendahl LK, et al. Is the

Increasing Incidence of thyroid cancer in the Nordic

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 283

countries caused by use of Mobile Phones? Int J

Environ Res Public Health 17 (2020): 9129.

123. Philips A, Henshaw DL, Lamburn G, et al. Brain

Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence

in England 1995-2015 Suggests an Adverse

Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. J Environ Public

Health (2018): 7910754.

124. Zada G, Bond AE, Wang Y-P, et al. Incidence trends in

the anatomic location of primary malignant brain

tumors in the United states:1992-2006. World

Neurosurgery 77 (2012;): 518-524.

125. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Increasing rates of brain

tumours in the Swedish national inpatient register and

the causes of death register. Int J Environ Res Public

Health 12 (2015): 3793-3813.

126. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones

and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the

Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish

Cancer Register during 1998-2015. PLoS ONE 12

(2017): e0185461.

127. Khurana VG, Hardell L, Everaert J, et al.

Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile

phone base stations. Int J Occup Environ Health 16

(2010): 263-267.

128. Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a

cell-phone transmitter station. Int J Cancer Prev 1

(2004): 123-128.

129. Eger H, Hagen KU, Lucas B, et al. Einfluss der

raumlichen nahe von mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die

krebsinzidenz. The influence of being physically near

to a cell phone transmission mast on the incidence of

cancer. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 17 (2004): 326-

332.

130. Dode AC, Leão MM, Tejo F de AF, et al. Mortality by

neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the

Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state,

Brazil. Sci Total Environ 409 (2011): 3649-3665.

131. Li C-Y, Liu C-C, Chang Y-H, et al. A population-based

case-control study of radiofrequency exposure in

relation to childhood neoplasm. Sci Total Environ

(2012): 472-478.

132. Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, et al.

Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage

and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of

humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base

stations. Electromagn Biol Med 36 (2017): 295-305.

133. YouTube. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority EMF-

seminarium. Available online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKFf5zzlGqM

(2021).

134. ICNIRP. Funding & Governance. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/funding-

governance/index.html (2021).

135. ICNIRP. Former members. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/former-

members/index.html (2021).

136. ICNIRP. Available online: https://www.icnirp.org/

(2021).

137. IEEE. Available online: https://www.ieee.org/ (2021).

138. European Commission. SCENIHR – opinions.

Available online:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emer

ging/opinions_en (2021).

139. The 5G appeal. Available online: http://5gappeal.eu

(2021).

140. ICNIRP: Simon Mann. Available online:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331062221/https://

www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/scientific-expert-

group/details/seg-member-mann.html (2021).

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 284

141. ITU. FEYCHTING Maria. Available online:

https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-

Seminars/gsw/201406/Pages/bios/FEYCHTINGMaria

.aspx (2021).

142. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Recent research

on EMF and health risk. Seventh annual report from

SSM:s Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic

Fields, 2010. Available online:

https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/contentasse

ts/63e6735284dc4634830c4dd6003d9b07/201044-

recent-research-on-emf-and-health-risk-seventh-

annual-report-from-ssms-independent-expert-group-

on-electromagnetic-fields-2010 (2021).

143. Linkedin. Eric van Rongen. Available online:

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/eric-van-rongen-73b84614

(2021).

144. ICNIRP. Commission. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-

icnirp/commission/index.html (2021).

145. ICNIRP. Declaration of personal interests. Eric van

Rongen. Available online:

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/doc/VanRongenD

oI2017.pdf (2021).

146. IREA, National Research Council of Italy. Maria

Rosaria Scarfi. Available online:

http://www.irea.cnr.it/en/index.php?option=com_com

profiler&task=userprofile&user=158&Itemid=100

(2021).

147. Neufeld E, Kuster N. Systematic derivation of safety

limits for time-varying 5G radiofrequency exposure

based on analytical models and thermal dose. Health

Physics 115 (2018): 705-711.

148. Barnes F, Greenebaum B. Setting Guidelines for

Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs.

Bioelectromagnetics 41 (2020): 392-397.

149. Mason PA, Murphy MR and Petersen RC: IEEE EMF

health & safety standards. Available online:

https://www.who.int/peh-

emf/meetings/southkorea/en/IEEE_EMF_HEALTH_-

_Mason.pdf (2021).

150. IEEE. C95.1-1991 - IEEE standard for safety levels

with respect to human exposure to radio frequency

electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. 27 April,

1992. Available online:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/159488 (2021).

151. FCC: Telecommunications Act of 1996. Available

online:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-

1996 (2021).

152. Salzburg resolution on mobile telecommunication base

stations. Salzburg, June 7-8, 2000. Available online:

http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Salzburg_res.pd

f?fbclid=IwAR3R4sB5VrAbqoHcFfPTF-

hbaKoYTRdktA9wQUChQQRxFrWcWi8Bl5nv49w

(2021).

153. European Parliament. The physiological and

environmental effects of non-ionising electromagnetic

radiation. Final Study. Luxembourg. Available online:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etude

s/join/2001/297574/DG-4-

JOIN_ET(2001)297574_EN.pdf (2021).

154. Oberfeld G, Navarro AE, Portoles M, et al. The

microwave syndrome - further aspects of a Spanish

study. Available online:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237410769_

THE_MICROWAVE_SYNDROME_-

_FURTHER_ASPECTS_OF_A_SPANISH_STUDY

(2021).

J Cancer Sci Clin Ther 2021; 5 (2): 250-285 DOI: 10.26502/jcsct.5079117

Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 285

155. Hardell L, Walker M, Walhjalt B, et al. Secret ties to

industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.

Am J Ind Med 50 (2007;): 227-233.

156. Hardell L. Pesticides, soft-tissue sarcoma and non-

Hodgkin lymphoma - historical aspects on the

precautionary principle in cancer prevention. Acta

Oncologica 47 (2008): 347-354.

157. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Lost opportunities for cancer

prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with

emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Rev Environ

Health (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-

0168.

158. The EMF Call. Scientists and NGOs call for truly

protective limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields

(100 kHz to 300 GHz). Available online:

https://www.emfcall.org/ (2021).

159. ResearchGate. Eric van Rongen. Professional

experience. Available online:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Rongen/exp

erience (2021).

160. Maria Feychting. Declaration of interests. Available

online:

https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/docs/D

OI.Feychting%202012%20Norge%20expertgrupp.pdf

(2021).

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the

Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license 4.0

Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

The fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is currently deployed in Sweden since 2019/2020, as well as in many other countries. We have previously published seven case reports that include a total of 16 persons aged between 4 and 83 years that developed the microwave syndrome within short time after being exposed to 5G base stations close to their dwellings. In all cases high radiofrequency (RF) radiation from 4G/5G was measured with a broadband meter. RF radiation reached >2,500,000 to >3,180,000 μW/m ² in peak maximum value in three of the studies. In total 41 different health issues were assessed for each person graded 0 (no complaint) to 10 (worst symptoms). Most prevalent and severe were sleeping difficultly (insomnia, waking night time, early wake-up), headache, fatique, irritability, concentration problems, loss of immediate memory, emotional distress, depression tendency, anxiety/panic, dysesthesia (unusual touched based sensations), burning and lancinating skin, cardiovascular symptoms (transitory high or irregular pulse), dyspnea, and pain in muscles and joints. Balance disorder and tinnitus were less prevalent. All these symptoms are included in the microwave syndrome. In most cases the symptoms declined and disappeared within a short time period after the studied persons had moved to a place with no 5G. These case histories are classical examples of provocation studies. They reinforce the urgency to inhibit the deployment of 5G until more safety studies have been performed.

5G Radiofrequency Radiation Caused the Microwave Syndrome in a Family Living Close to the Base Stations

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Identification of Students’ Comprehension of Radiation Concept Using Rasch Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

This community service was conducted using a survey method. The survey aimed to test the understanding of high school students regarding the dangers of radiation exposure from the surrounding environment. Participants in this activity were 48 students (35 science students and 13 social science students) from a high school in Majalaya, Bandung Regency. The instrument used was a two-tier diagnostic test consisting of 4 essay questions related to physics concepts concerning radiation exposure. The analysis of the test results was divided into two parts: conception analysis and Rasch analysis. The conception analysis was done by interpreting students' answers and categorizing them into five conception categories: Full Understanding (FU), Partial Understanding (PU), Misconception (MC), Not Understanding (NU), and No Coding (NC). This categorization was presented in percentage form. The Rasch analysis was conducted based on the distribution of students' answers and item bias detection to identify the spread of students' answers to each question item and the biases present. First, the conception analysis results showed that 53% of students were included in the FU category, while only 5% were in the Not Understanding (NU) category. This indicates that students' understanding of the dangers of radiation exposure is quite good, as more than half of the participants are in the FU category. Second, the Rasch analysis results based on the distribution of students' answers showed that more students could answer basic comprehension questions compared to classification and analysis-based questions. Additionally, the Rasch analysis results based on item bias detection indicated that there was no gender or academic major bias in the four question items.

A New Setup for Microwave Exposure to Pathogenic Samples

Article

Apr 2024

Several studies have focused on the inactivation of biological microorganisms, such as viruses, using microwave exposure and have introduced some apparatuses. This paper represents a feasibility study of the inactivation of pathogens by fabricating a new, but very simple electromagnetic exposure test setup. The setup has the advantage of having uniform electric field radiation on multiple test tubes simultaneously. The test setup operates from 8 to 9 GHz. The radiation unit in the test setup consists of two circular parallel plates and can be considered a parallel-plane radial transmission line. Five equispaced holes are embedded in the setup to insert test tubes containing samples. The study also takes the distribution of the field inside the liquids of the test tubes. The results demonstrate that without inserting the test tubes, the TEM wave propagates in the radiation unit while inserting the test tubes creates a standing wave inside the test tubes. The setup can create E-field levels of more than 100 V/m from 0.5 Watts input power inside the liquid which is much better than using open-air methods.

Adopting Scientifically Invalid Assumptions of No Risks for Deployment of the Fifth Generation, 5G, for Wireless Communication by the EU Commission is Harmful to Human Health and the Environment

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

Radiofrequency radiation, EU, SCHEER, GIA, ICNIRP

Comments on the paper “correlation does not imply causation: decline of House Sparrow overshadowed by electromagnetic radiation” by Nath et al.

Article

Jan 2024

The paper published by Nath et al. (Urban Ecosystems 25:1279–1295, 2022) analyzes the influence of different ecological factors and covariates on House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) abundance but criticizes previous research without explaining in depth the scientific reasons for it and reaches conclusions not supported by the authors’ own data nor by existing knowledge and scientific evidence. They state that studies on the impacts of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on birds outside laboratory conditions carried out in the past did not consider other ecological factors that could also influence the life history needs of the species. However, precisely the opposite is true; the studies carried out so far, taking into account most of the possible factors to consider, including urbanization, have not been able to solve the enigma of the House Sparrow decline in many of the world's cities. Thus, it is necessary to propose new possible causes not considered so far. Among the few that remain to be tested is the electromagnetic radiation hypothesis, which was proposed by two independent research teams in two different countries. This paper is a reply of the work developed by Nath et al. (Urban Ecosystems 25:1279–1295, 2022) that highlight their inconclusive results and methodological flaws due to the correlation observed between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and urbanization, complement their results showing negative correlations when testing House Sparrow abundance with electromagnetic radiation levels correcting for the percentage of builtup, and clarify some statements and misconceptions (importance of non-thermal effects).

Incidence and Mortality of Malignant Brain Tumors after 20 Years of Mobile Use

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Simple Summary This population-based study, spanning 20 years, revealed trends regarding the incidence and mortality due to malignant neoplasm of the brain (MNB) in association with mobile phone usage in Taiwan. The findings indicate a trend of increase in the number of mobile phone users over the study period, accompanied by a slight rise in the incidence and death rates of MNB. The compound annual growth rates further support these observations, highlighting consistent growth in mobile phone users and a corresponding increase in MNB incidences and deaths. While this study suggests a weak association between mobile phone users and MNB incidence and mortality, it is important to acknowledge that conclusive results cannot be drawn at this stage. Further investigation is required to obtain more definitive findings. Continued research in this area will contribute to better understanding of the potential risks and aid in the development of safer mobile phone usage practices in the future. Abstract (1) Objective: This population-based study was performed to examine the trends of incidence and deaths due to malignant neoplasm of the brain (MNB) in association with mobile phone usage for a period of 20 years (January 2000–December 2019) in Taiwan. (2) Methods: Pearson correlation, regression analysis, and joinpoint regression analysis were used to examine the trends of incidence of MNB and deaths due to MNB in association with mobile phone usage. (3) Results: The findings indicate a trend of increase in the number of mobile phone users over the study period, accompanied by a slight rise in the incidence and death rates of MNB. The compound annual growth rates further support these observations, highlighting consistent growth in mobile phone users and a corresponding increase in MNB incidences and deaths. (4) Conclusions: The results suggest a weaker association between the growing number of mobile phone users and the rising rates of MNB, and no significant correlation was observed between MNB incidences and deaths and mobile phone usage. Ultimately, it is important to acknowledge that conclusive results cannot be drawn at this stage and further investigation is required by considering various other confounding factors and potential risks to obtain more definitive findings and a clearer picture.

Health Concerns of 5G and Setting Suitable Restrictions

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2024

Michael Bevington

This Mini Review has two aims. The first is to analyse six case reports on actual health effects of 5G radiofrequency radiation (RFR), comparing the results with concerns for similar RFR. The second is to relate these reports to setting restrictions suitable for all, including for persons with intolerance to environmental RFR. Adverse health effects from 5G RFR occur below current thermal restrictions. Therefore, restrictions need to be at non-thermal levels based on a threshold, as for a No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). Ecological evidence suggests a suitable restriction including a safety factor of ten should be set at 0.06 μW/m2 (0.005 V/m).

The European Union assessments of radiofrequency radiation health risks – another hard nut to crack (Review)

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
Rev Environ Health

In 2017 an article was published on the unwillingness of the WHO to acknowledge the health effects associated with the use of wireless phones. It was thus stated that the WHO is ‘A Hard Nut to Crack’. Since then, there has been no progress, and history seems to be repeating in that the European Union (EU) is following in the blind man’s footsteps created by the WHO. Despite increasing evidence of serious negative effects from radiofrequency radiation on human health and the environment, the EU has not acknowledged that there are any risks. Since September 2017, seven appeals by scientists and medical doctors have been sent to the EU requesting a halt to the roll-out of the fifth generation of wireless communication (5G). The millimeter waves (MMW) and complex waveforms of 5G contribute massively harmful additions to existing planetary electromagnetic pollution. Fundamental rights and EU primary law make it mandatory for the EU to protect the population, especially children, from all kinds of harmful health effects of wireless technology. However, several experts associated with the WHO and the EU have conflicts of interest due to their ties to industry. The subsequent prioritizing of economic interests is resulting in human and planetary health being compromised. Experts must make an unbiased evaluation with no conflicts of interest. The seven appeals to the EU have included requests for immediate protective action, which have been ignored. On the issue of wireless radiation and the health of citizens, the EU seems to be another hard nut to crack.

Electromagnetic Assessment of Wind Turbines

Chapter

Jan 2023

Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2021
Rev Environ Health

Some historical aspects on late lessons from early warnings on cancer risks with lost time for prevention are discussed. One current example is the cancer-causing effect from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Studies since decades have shown increased human cancer risk. The fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication is about to be implemented world-wide despite no comprehensive investigations of potential risks to human health and the environment. This has created debate on this technology among concerned people in many countries. In an appeal to EU in September 2017, currently endorsed by more than 400 scientists and medical doctors, a moratorium on the 5G deployment was required until proper scientific evaluation of negative consequences has been made (www.5Gappeal.eu). That request has not been taken seriously by EU. Lack of proper unbiased risk evaluation of the 5G technology makes adverse effects impossible to be foreseen. This disregard is exemplified by the recent report from the International Commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP) whereby only thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation are acknowledged despite a large number of reported non-thermal effects. Thus, no health effects are acknowledged by ICNIRP for non-thermal RF electromagnetic fields in the range of 100 kHz-300 GHz. Based on results in three case-control studies on use of wireless phones we present preventable fraction for brain tumors. Numbers of brain tumors of not defined type were found to increase in Sweden, especially in the age group 20-39 years in both genders, based on the Swedish Inpatient Register. This may be caused by the high prevalence of wireless phone use among children and in adolescence taking a reasonable latency period and the higher vulnerability to RF radiation among young persons.

Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2018

Objective To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period. Methods UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (1995–2015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years, age–standardised to the European Standard Population (ESP–2013). Results We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower-grade tumours. Conclusions The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lower–grade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible. This article reports incidence data trends and does not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.

Regarding ICNIRP'S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program's Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

Article

Jun 2020
HEALTH PHYS

Ronald Melnick

Setting Guidelines for Electromagnetic Exposures and Research Needs

Article

Apr 2020

Current limits for exposures to nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) are set, based on relatively short‐term exposures. Long‐term exposures to weak EMF are not addressed in the current guidelines. Nevertheless, a large and growing amount of evidence indicates that long‐term exposure to weak fields can affect biological systems and might have effects on human health. If they do, the public health issues could be important because of the very large fraction of the population worldwide that is exposed. We also discuss research that needs to be done to clarify questions about the effects of weak fields. In addition to the current short‐term exposure guidelines, we propose an approach to how weak field exposure guidelines for long‐term exposures might be set, in which the responsibility for limiting exposure is divided between the manufacturer, system operator, and individual being exposed. Bioelectromagnetics. © 2020 Bioelectromagnetics Society

Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut

Article

Dec 2019

Emerging studies have provided evidence on the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones. This study aims to test the genetic susceptibility on the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer. Population-based case-control study was conducted in Connecticut between 2010 and 2011 including 440 thyroid cancer cases and 465 population-based controls with genotyping information for 823 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 176 DNA genes. We used multivariate unconditional logistic regression models to estimate the genotype-environment interaction between each SNP and cell phone use and to estimate the association with cell phone use in populations according to SNP variants. Ten SNPs had P < 0.01 for interaction in all thyroid cancers. In the common homozygote groups, no association with cell phone use was observed. In the variant group (heterozygotes and rare homozygotes), cell phone use was associated with an increased risk for rs11070256 (odds ratio (OR): 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-4.30), rs1695147 (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.30-4.90), rs6732673 (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.01-2.49), rs396746 (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.13-5.65), rs12204529 (OR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.33-5.17), and rs3800537 (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.30-5.36) with thyroid cancers. In small tumors, increased risk was observed for 5 SNPs (rs1063639, rs1695147, rs11070256, rs12204529 and rs3800537), In large tumors, increased risk was observed for 3 SNPs (rs11070256, rs1695147, and rs396746). Our result suggests that genetic susceptibilities modify the associations between cell phone use and risk of thyroid cancer. The findings provide more evidence for RFR carcinogenic group classification.

Brain and Salivary Gland Tumors and Mobile Phone Use: Evaluating the Evidence from Various Epidemiological Study Designs

Article

Apr 2019

Mobile phones (MPs) are the most relevant source of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure to the brain and the salivary gland. Whether this exposure implies a cancer risk has been addressed in several case-control and few cohort studies. A meta-analysis of these studies does not show increased risks for meningioma, pituitary, and salivary gland tumors. For glioma and acoustic neuroma, the results are heterogeneous, with few case-control studies reporting substantially increased risks. However, these elevated risks are not coherent with observed incidence time trends, which are considered informative for this specific topic owing to the steep increase in MP use, the availability of virtually complete cancer registry data from many countries, and the limited number of known competing environmental risk factors. In conclusion, epidemiological studies do not suggest increased brain or salivary gland tumor risk with MP use, although some uncertainty remains regarding long latency periods (>15 years), rare brain tumor subtypes, and MP usage during childhood.

Cell phone use and risk of thyroid cancer: a population-based case-control study in Connecticut

Article

Oct 2018
ANN EPIDEMIOL

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer. Methods: A population-based case-control study was conducted in Connecticut between 2010 and 2011 including 462 histologically confirmed thyroid cancer cases and 498 population-based controls. Multivariate unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for associations between cell phone use and thyroid cancer. Results: Cell phone use was not associated with thyroid cancer (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.74-1.48). A suggestive increase in risk of thyroid microcarcinoma (tumor size ≤10 mm) was observed for long-term and more frequent users. Compared with cell phone nonusers, several groups had nonstatistically significantly increased risk of thyroid microcarcinoma: individuals who had used a cell phone >15 years (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.83-2.00), who had used a cell phone >2 hours per day (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.83-2.35), who had the most cumulative use hours (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.98-2.54), and who had the most cumulative calls (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.78-1.84). Conclusions: This study found no significant association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer. A suggestive elevated risk of thyroid microcarcinoma associated with long-term and more frequent uses warrants further investigation.

Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose

Article

Sep 2018
HEALTH PHYS

Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time [INCREMENT]T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail. The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-to-average ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.

Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects

Article

Sep 2018
ENVIRON RES

Ronald L. Melnick

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted two-year studies of cell phone radiation in rats and mice exposed to CDMA- or GSM-modulated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at exposure intensities in the brain of rats that were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head. This study was designed to test the (null) hypothesis that cell phone radiation at non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause adverse health effects, and to provide dose-response data for any detected toxic or carcinogenic effects. Partial findings released from that study showed significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats. These results, as well as the findings of significantly increased DNA damage (strand breaks) in the brains of exposed rats and mice, reduced pup birth weights when pregnant dams were exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, and the induction of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats clearly demonstrate that the null hypothesis has been disproved. The NTP findings are most important because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as a "possible human carcinogen" based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR strengthens the animal-to-human association. This commentary addresses several unfounded criticisms about the design and results of the NTP study that have been promoted to minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR for assessing human health risks. In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed, and that the results demonstrated that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR were carcinogenic to the heart (schwannomas) and brain (gliomas) of male rats.

Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective

Article

Jul 2018

Exposure to low frequency and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at low intensities poses a significant health hazard that has not been adequately addressed by national and international organizations such as the World Health Organization. There is strong evidence that excessive exposure to mobile phone-frequencies over long periods of time increases the risk of brain cancer both in humans and animals. The mechanism(s) responsible include induction of reactive oxygen species, gene expression alteration and DNA damage through both epigenetic and genetic processes. In vivo and in vitro studies demonstrate adverse effects on male and female reproduction, almost certainly due to generation of reactive oxygen species. There is increasing evidence the exposures can result in neurobehavioral decrements and that some individuals develop a syndrome of "electro-hypersensitivity" or "microwave illness", which is one of several syndromes commonly categorized as "idiopathic environmental intolerance". While the symptoms are non-specific, new biochemical indicators and imaging techniques allow diagnosis that excludes the symptoms as being only psychosomatic. Unfortunately standards set by most national and international bodies are not protective of human health. This is a particular concern in children, given the rapid expansion of use of wireless technologies, the greater susceptibility of the developing nervous system, the hyperconductivity of their brain tissue, the greater penetration of radiofrequency radiation relative to head size and their potential for a longer lifetime exposure.

Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation

Figures

Recommended publications

Statement on ICNIRP guidelines on limits of exposure to laser radiation, H.-P. Berlien, M. Brose, T....

The IRPA/INIRC Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Laser Radiation

Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Assessment Based on Call-Related Factors and Physical Conditio...

Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Guidelines: Summary of Research and Policy Options