Leading scientist criticises WHO’s research
March 7, 2025
A world authority on radiofrequency radiation says that key studies commissioned by the World Health Organization are flawed and their results unreliable.
Writing in the January issue of the IEEE Microwave Magazine, Professor James Lin, discussed four review studies published since late 2023, all of which suggest that radiofrequency radiation is not harmful and all of which are unreliable.
Reproduction study
The first was a study claiming that exposing a foetus to RF radiation ‘probably does not affect offspring brain weight and may not decrease female offspring fertility’ and, downplaying the effects of exposure.
Lin says, ‘While the WHO-EMF systematic review presents itself as thorough, scientific, and relevant to human health, numerous issues were identified, suggesting the WHO-EMF review was severely flawed. The found flaws skewed the results in support of the review’s conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence for effects other than RF-induced tissue heating.’ In fact, he said, ‘the underlying data, when relevant studies are cited correctly, support the opposite conclusion: “There are clear indications of detrimental nonthermal effects” from RF exposure.’
Symptom study
The second of the WHO studies to be criticised by Lin was a review on headache, migraine, tinnitus, sleep disturbances and nonspecific symptoms in workers, which concluded that the radiation levels in the ICNIRP Guidelines offer sufficient protection.
Lin refers to a criticism of this study published by ‘three accomplished senior researchers’ which found serious problems with the paper and called for it to be retracted. The number [of studies considered in the review] is very small, and the methodological quality of the relevant primary studies is low,’ he said.
Oxidative stress study
The third WHO study Lin criticised concluded that there was not much evidence that RF radiation caused oxidative stress.
Lin points out that the review eliminated 11,543 of the 11,599 studies on this topic, leaving very few studies to be considered.
He also refers to very different findings by Henry Lai, ‘a leading researcher in RF oxidative responses and professor emeritus at the university of Washington, Seattle.’ Professor Lai has found that 89% of relevant studies showed significant effects.
Tumour study
The fourth WHO study critiqued by Lin reported that mobile phone radiation did not increase the risks of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuromas, pituitary tumours or salivary gland tumours and was widely reported as indicating that mobile phone radiation is safe.
Lin points out that there is considerable evidence linking RF radiation with tumours. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen in 2011. Subsequently two major animal studies – one by the US national Toxicology Program and one by the Ramazzini Institute – found evidence that supports this classification.
Lin says that this research,’ under normal circumstances, would likely have provided the justification for raising WHO-IARC’s current possible cancer risk designation to the probable cancer-causing classification, if not higher.’
However, that didn’t happen.
Lin’s views on the quality of the WHO’s reviews are clear. He says, ‘Rigorous examinations of the reviews reveal major concerns. In addition to the scientific quality, they appear to have a strong conviction of nothing but heat to worry about with RF radiation. The unsubtle message that cellular mobile phones do not pose a cancer risk is clear. The reviews exhibit a lack of serious concerns for conflicts of interest and display unequivocal support for the recently promulgated ICNIRP RF exposure guidelines for human safety.’
Lin JC. World Health Organization’s EMF Project’s Systemic Reviews on the Association Between RF Exposure and Health Effects Encounter Challenges [Health Matters]. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 26(1): 13-15, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2024.3476748. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
Consultation service
Talk to one of Australia’s most experienced and knowledgeable consultants about your home and how to be better protected.
You can book an online consultation here.
What else can you do?