Experts critique WHO research Part 1
Oct. 16, 2025
Leading scientists have criticised major projects of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and concluded that both the advice and exposure levels the WHO recommends are deeply flawed and unreliable.
The WHO commissioned 12 studies (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) into the effects of radiofrequency (RF/wireless) radiation. These reviews concluded that RF exposure was not a health risk, providing exposure levels did not exceed the levels recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
However, that research is flawed, according to Dr Ronald Melnick and team, from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). In their new paper, published in the journal Environmental Health, the team described flaws in the studies and why they should not be relied upon for radiation guidelines and standards.
Dr. Ron Melnick is Senior Advisor and former senior toxicologist at the National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). ‘We began reviewing the WHO-commissioned assessments because of our longstanding involvement in this research and the potential influence these reviews could have on future policy decisions,’ he said. ‘We uncovered numerous flaws, including the exclusion of relevant studies, reliance on weak studies, inappropriate combining of studies with vastly different exposure conditions, and undisclosed biases among the authors.’
Here are some of the problems Melnick and team identified.
Author bias
Melnick pointed out that the working groups involved in writing the WHO-commissioned reviews included one or more members of ICNIRP. This had the potential to bias the reviews because ICNIRP has a long history of failing to recognise adverse health effects at exposure levels lower than the Guidelines it produces.
Furthermore, ICNIRP has connections with vested interests. ‘Another concern for the usefulness of the reviews is ICNIRP’s ties to major economic industries (telecommunications, military) that have financial interests in exposure standards for RF-EMF. These ties have been described by members of the European Parliament as “conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G”’, the authors wrote.
Inclusion/Exclusion
Other flaws in the WHO’s research relate to what studies they chose to include or exclude in their reviews which, of course, affects the outcome.
For example, the WHO’s review on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) focused only on the strength of the radiofrequency signal, excluding other RF frequencies, magnetic fields, pulses, modulations, polarity, data transfer and so on.
Design flaws
Melnick identified numerous flaws in the design of the WHO-commissioned reviews and in the studies that they included in their reviews, which affected the reliability of their conclusions. They determined that eleven of the reviews ‘had serious methodological weaknesses’ that invalidated the studies’ conclusions.
Insufficient evidence
The authors also identified examples where the WHO-commissioned reviews had arrived at conclusions of safety with insufficient evidence to support them.
Reproductive damage
According to Melnick, one of the WHO-commissioned reviews found evidence of reproductive damage, although this was not acknowledged by its authors. The review ‘found statistically significant adverse effects including increase in resorbed and dead fetuses, decrease in fetal weight, decrease in fetal length, and increase in fetal malformations.’ Melnick says that these findings ‘should serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human risks.’
Melnick and team concluded that the results of the WHO-commissioned reviews are unreliable.
‘Instead of assessing the scientific evidence on human health risks from RF-EMF exposures comprehensively, these SRs create a false sense of safety that undermines public health protection. In light of the mounting scientific evidence from research studies published over the past 30 years, including the studies on cancer and on reproductive effects in experimental animals … and the widespread and increasing exposure of populations to RF-EMF, there is a clear need to reduce exposures and strengthen safety limits, especially for pregnant women, children, and people with chronic health conditions.’
‘Due to serious flaws in the reviews and MAs, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones or other wireless communication devices and should not be relied upon for the forthcoming WHO EHC monograph,’ the authors concluded.
References
Melnick, R.L., Moskowitz, J.M., Héroux, P. et al. The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety. Environ Health 24, 70 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940...
ICBE-EMF Media release, Scientists Challenge WHO-Commissioned Reviews on Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation Safety, ‘The safety of wireless technology is not assured’, https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper...
To reproduce this article for your network, please include the following text: Article reproduced with permission from EMR Australia, www.emraustralia.com.au
How much radiation are you and your family exposed to?
Check out the radiation in your home, school or workplace with our FM5 meter – the world’s first consumer millimetre wave 5G meter.
You can see more here.