Who’s Right? Challenging the WHO’s Recent Meta-Analysis on if EMF Radiation from Cell Phones can Cause Cancer

Last Updated on September 6, 2024

Studies come out occasionally looking at newly gathered data on electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation and impacts on health.

More often today, we see reviews of multiple studies, called a meta-analysis, that tries to find trends and similarities between the data.

On September 3, 2024, one of these meta-analyses came out, funded by the World Health Organization, or the WHO.

It has gotten a lot of press, with its claim that there are no significant effects from cell phone radiation on cancer. This goes against its concerning 2011 claim that radiofrequency (RF) radiation is possibly carcinogenic for humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer.

Conversely, a Canadian study published a day after has received much less attention, even though its results boldly claim that regular mobile phone users having a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease compared with nonregular mobile phone users.

About the WHO Study on EMF and Cancer

The meta-analysis study funded by the World Health Organization, titled “The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population?” focused specifically on cellphone effects on brain cancer and childhood cancer. The review initially gathered over 5,000 studies, and hand selected 63 that they would use for their analysis.

Their objective was “to assess the quality and strength of the evidence provided by human observational studies for a causal association between exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and risk of the most investigated neoplastic diseases.”

They found the following:

• Exposure to RF from mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of brain cancer.
• RF from broadcasting antennas or base stations likely does not increase the risk of childhood cancer.
• Occupational exposure to RF may not increase the risk of brain cancer.

Drawbacks of the WHO Meta-Analysis

You may be wondering why and how they can claim there is no significant evidence linking cellphone use to cancer. Released on September 3, the report’s conclusion contradicts numerous peer-reviewed studies that suggest the opposite.

As an expert in EMF radiation and a former telecommunications engineer, I read this study and found some disappointing things.

First, like mentioned above, they hand-picked 63 out of 5,000 studies. This is a potential concern since most of the research they selected were other meta-analyses, which lacked higher-level quantitative data with statistical significance. Also, this report favored studies supporting a no-risk view while ignoring epidemiological studies that show clear evidence to the contrary.

For example, it did not review the 2018 National Toxicology Program’s landmark study showing that high exposure to radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats, the hearts of male rats, and the brains of male rats.

It appears the findings were heavily influenced by subjective interpretations of the study leads. Several independent researchers have reviewed the same data and concluded that cellphone emissions are associated with cancer.

The report also cited an irrelevant radar study to suggest 5G emissions are harmless, despite the vast differences in frequency ranges between radar (30-300 MHz) and 5G (up to 300 GHz).

Additionally, the report ignored studies that had people recall which side of the head they hold their phone to while making a phone call, because they thought there would be “recall bias.” Completely ignoring studies showing the potential link between brain cancer and phone radiation, simply because the researchers didn’t believe people could accurately recall which side of the head they hold their phone up to, seems like a purposeful omission.

While they do discuss eliminating bias in their report, the report was funded by the WHO, along with one of the lead researchers having direct ties to the organization. Independent peer-reviewed research remains the gold standard. Jeffry Fawcett, PhD found that of industry funded studies, only 27% found an RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) effect. Independently funded studies found an RFR effect 68% of the time. Either way, any incidence of effects is cause for concern.

Taking a Step Back

All in all, the WHO’s report doesn’t present any new data, and simply looked at previous research meta-analyses, most of which favored the conclusion of EMF radiation having no effect on cancer. Many news and media outlets have generalized this to say that EMF radiation has NO harmful impacts on the body.

I hope many will do their own research and stay mindful of potential health impacts on all different parts of the body, in children and in adults.