The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned 12 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The health outcomes selected for those reviews (cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects) were based on a WHO-conducted international survey. The SR of the studies of cancer in laboratory animal studies was the only one that did not include a MA, because those authors considered it inappropriate due to methodological differences among the available studies, including differences in exposure characteristics (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization), experimental parameters (hours/day of exposure, duration of exposure, exposure systems), and different biological models. MAs in all the other SRs suffered from relatively few primary studies available for each MA (sometimes due to excessive subgrouping), exclusion of relevant studies, weaknesses in many of the included primary studies, lack of a framework for analyzing complex processes such as those involved in cognitive functions, and/or high between-study heterogeneity. Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. However, the animal cancer SR, which was rated as "high certainty of evidence" for heart schwannomas and "moderate certainty of evidence" for brain gliomas, provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk. The multiple and significant dose-related adverse effects found in the SRs on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcome should also serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human reproductive risks. The report of harmful effects (e.g., cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) at doses below the adverse health effect threshold claimed by ICNIRP demonstrates that current exposure limits to RF-EMF, which were established by applying arbitrary uncertainty factors to their putative adverse threshold dose, lack scientific credibility.
Melnick et al. (Wed,) studied this question.