Experts critique WHO research – part 2
October 21, 2025
Last week we saw that leading international scientists say that research commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the effects of radiofrequency (wireless) radiation is deeply flawed and so are the radiation standards the WHO endorses.
This is big news for everyone who uses wireless devices – which is most of us.
This week we take a look at what some of the scientists from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), who conducted the study, have to say about this and what recommendations they have for the future.
The WHO commissioned 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses that analysed evidence from previously published studies.
Dr Ron Melnick, lead author of the study, described some of the many problems his team found with the WHO’s work. ‘…we identified examples in which the WHO reviews relied on low information studies, excluded some important studies, inappropriately combined results from dissimilar studies, and a situation in which the results on a specific topic were so excessively sub-grouped that they diluted the significance of the overall effect.’
Dr Joel Moskowitz, Director of Family and Community Health at the University of California Berkeley, explained that there were two major problems with the WHO’s meta-analyses.
- ‘First, there were too few studies: Many meta-analyses were based on a very small number of studies. When there are few studies, the results of a meta-analysis are not reliable.
- ‘And second, there was too much variation: The studies included in the reviews were often too different from each other. This "high heterogeneity" means they can't be meaningfully combined. For example, some studies might show a harmful effect while others show no effect or a beneficial one. Lumping them together hides these important differences and gives a misleading average effect.’
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, a medical doctor and Founder of Physicians Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment, said that two of the WHO’s systematic reviews were relevant to electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This is the experience of uncomfortable symptoms – such as headaches, sleep problems, dizziness, tinnitus and palpitations – that are related to EMF exposure.
‘Both of these Systematic Reviews suffered serious (in some cases fatal) weaknesses,’ she said.
This included the fact that they were based on a ‘small number of poor quality primary studies’ and that there was such variation in the studies that it was inappropriate to use meta-analysis in the first place.
Dr John Frank, physician-epidemiologist and Chair of the ICBE-EMF, explained that the flaws in the WHO’s studies have created a false sense of security. He said, ‘[t]he fundamental scientific errors in all but one of the WHO-commissioned meta-analyses has understandably led some lay observers, and some scientists unfamiliar with meta-analytic methods, to conclude that “there is nothing to worry about, regarding RF-EMF exposures and adverse health/biological effects.”
‘We at ICBE-EMF strongly believe, based on our substantial, collective, and multidisciplinary expertise in this field, that these SRs are – rather sadly for the health of the public and well-being of the environment – simply inadequate for concluding that current “safe exposure limits” recommended by the WHO are reliable.’
What can be done?
Frank proffered the following recommendations. ‘We call for a thorough, and more independent, review of this body of evidence, to correct the mistaken conclusions of all but one of the dozen published SRs commissioned by WHO. Until that is done, we strongly urge the public and regulatory authorities internationally to consider current, WHO-recommended safe exposure limits to be potentially too high to fully protect the public and the environment, and we urge them to do everything possible to reduce RF-EMF exposures to the public and in public places, especially among particularly susceptible persons, such as pregnant women, infants and children, youth, and those with chronic diseases and disability of any age.’
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...
See the ICBE-EMF webinar ‘Scientists Challenge WHO-Commissioned Reviews on Wireless Radiofrequency
Radiation Safety: The safety of wireless technology is not assured’
here. https://icbe-emf.org/new-paper-who-reviews-on-cell-phone-and-wireless-health-effects-provide-no-safety-assurance/
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 one of our radiation detectors. You can see more about them here.
How much radiation are you and your family exposed to?
Check out the radiation in your home, school or workplace with one of our radiation detectors. You can see more about them here.