A new review article shows that a WHO-commissioned meta-analysis of research on the cancer risks of mobile phone radiation, which dismisses the cancer risks, is flawed and does not reflect the state of knowledge. The review article shows that the authors of the WHO meta-analysis made several serious scientific mistakes – including overlooking elevated cancer risks observed in the most exposed groups.
In September 2024, a meta-analysis article on the cancer risks of mobile phone radiation, commissioned by the WHO, was published, claiming that there would be “moderate certainty” that mobile phone use does not increase the risk of cancer. The same assessment was made for exposure from base stations or Radio/TV masts and the risk of childhood leukaemia.
However, the WHO analysis is seriously flawed on several important aspects, as exposed in the new review article, for example
- Studies showing a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer in the most exposed user groups have been overlooked, as have results showing an increased risk of cancer on the same side of the head as the mobile phone was used for calls. On the contrary the WHO review focuses on results from studies with low total use and non-significant results.
- Studies with serious methodological flaws have been given high weight in the results and, conversely, high-quality studies showing elevated risks have been given low weight.
- Conclusions on exposure to radiation from base stations or radio/TV masts are based on few studies and contradictory results including a study with such low exposure and short follow-up that it is irrelevant for cancer risks, given current normal exposure levels. Studies showing increased risks have been excluded.
The WHO meta-analysis (Karipidis et al.) was carried out by individuals with conflicts of interest: for example, three of the authors are members of the ICNIRP, the organization that has recommended the limits for mobile phone radiation that only protect against the immediate heating effects of short-term exposure resulting from very intense radiation. They therefore lack protection against cancer risks and other health effects from long term exposure. Since the telecom companies have very large financial interests in the ICNIRP limits, it is a serious conflict of interest to act as a reviewer for the WHO of the research in this area and at the same time being a member of ICNIRP. ICNIRP is considered a pro-industry organization.
The new review of the WHO meta-analysis is made by Dr Lennart Hardell, oncologist, and Mona Nilsson at the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation. Lennart Hardell is a leading international expert on the cancer risks of mobile phone radiation. He and his colleagues have published scientific studies in this field for more than 20 years.
Hardell and Nilsson state that:
– Most of the results on which the authors of the WHO analysis rely on for their conclusions are based on very low exposure levels not representative for the public’s exposure today, and the authors have excluded or ignored results based on highest exposure categories. The conclusions by the authors of various grades of “certainty” that RF-EMF exposures do not cause cancer are unscientific and unjustified in view of the available scientific evidence. Evaluations of health risks from RF radiation should be performed by scientists without ties to ICNIRP or industry. Industrial direct or indirect ties may compromise objective and sound scientific evaluation. The serious scientific malpractice in this WHO review with a fatally flawed evaluation of radiofrequency radiation and cancer risks should lead to retraction of the article.
– The WHO analysis has clear scientific shortcomings and is not consistent with the state of knowledge. It is a threat to public health, because it downplays cancer risks, and it should never have been published, stated Lennart Hardell
Mona Nilsson added: – Our review shows that the authors made serious errors. For example the authors cannot be unaware of the serious inherent flaws in a Danish study on mobile phone subscribers that underestimates the risks. Nevertheless, they have given the study great importance for their results. Nor can they be unaware of the fact that their conclusion on base stations and transmitters are contradicted by studies they excluded and by one of the only two base station studies they included.
Previously, the WHO article has also been criticized by a group of independent world-leading experts from ICBE-EMF, an international radiation protection commission formed in 2022. The organization concluded in a statement that the WHO article contains such serious errors that it should be withdrawn.
Reference: Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson. A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 9 (2025): 09-26. (pdf)
