A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks (Response to Karipidis et al. 2024)

Abstract

Overview

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation was classified as a possible human carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the WHO. Currently, the WHO is conducting a systematic review of human studies concerning cancer risks associated with RF exposure.

Findings

• Karipidis et al. (2024), commissioned by the WHO, argued that "moderate certainty evidence" suggests mobile phone use likely does not increase risks for various brain tumors in adults or pediatric cases.
• The authors of this critical analysis highlight that the WHO-commissioned review overlooks increased brain tumor risks in the most exposed groups, especially those with longer latency from first exposure to diagnosis and exposure to the most affected head areas.
• Furthermore, the review claimed "moderate certainty evidence" that transmitters and mobile phone base stations do not increase the risk of pediatric leukemia. However, these conclusions are derived from selective inclusion of only a few studies, all with low exposure levels.
• This analysis contradicts the WHO's evaluation, pointing to scientific evidence showing increased cancer risks from RF radiation emitted by mobile and cordless phones, transmitters, and base stations.
• The article addresses errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest present in the Karipidis et al. review, which may have influenced their “no cancer risk” conclusions.

Conclusion

The conclusions made by Karipidis et al. regarding the lack of cancer risks from mobile and cordless phones or RF radiation from transmitters and base stations are based on flawed interpretations, omission of contradictory evidence, and inherent conflicts of interest. Notably, the exposure levels considered in their evaluation do not reflect current public exposure. The exclusion of high-exposure data further skews results. Therefore, their statements about the "certainty" of no cancer risk from RF-EMF exposure are unscientific and unjustified. Assessments of RF radiation’s health effects should be performed by independent scientists not affiliated with industry or ICNIRP, as industry ties could compromise objectivity. Due to the serious scientific malpractice outlined, the article by Karipidis et al. should be retracted.