Most politicians and other decision-makers using guidelines for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation seem to ignore the risks to human health and the environment. The fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) in May 2011 classified RF radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz to 300 GHz to be a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B (1,2), is being ignored. This has been recently exemplified in a hearing at the Tallinn Parliament in Estonia (3).

An important factor may be the influence on politicians by individuals and organizations with inborn conflicts of interests (COIs) and their own agenda in supporting the no-risk paradigm (4,5). The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has repeatedly ignored scientific evidence on adverse effects of RF radiation to humans and the environment. Their guidelines for exposure are based solely on the thermal (heating) paradigm and were first published in ICNIRP 1998 (6), updated in ICNIRP 2009 (7) and have now been newly published in ICNIRP 2020 (8), with no change of concept, only relying on thermal effects from RF radiation on humans. The large amount of peer-reviewed science on non-thermal effects has been ignored in all ICNIRP evaluations (9,10). Additionally, ICNIRP has successfully maintained their obsolete guidelines worldwide.

COIs can be detrimental, and it is necessary to be as unbiased as possible when assessing health risks. There are three points that should be emphasized. Firstly, the evidence regarding health risks from environmental factors may not be unambiguous, and therefore informed judgements must be made. Furthermore, there are gaps in knowledge that call for experienced evaluations, and no conclusion can be reached without value judgements. Secondly, paradigms are defended against the evidence and against external assessments by social networks in the scientific community. Thirdly, the stronger the impact of decisions about health risks on economic, military and political interests, the stronger will stakeholders try to influence these decision processes.

Since the IARC evaluation in 2011 (1,2), the evidence on human cancer risks from RF radiation has been strengthened based on human cancer epidemiology reports (9–11), animal carcinogenicity studies (12–14) and experimental findings on oxidative mechanisms (15) and genotoxicity (16). Therefore, the IARC Category should be upgraded from Group 2B to Group 1, a human carcinogen (17).

The deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, of RF radiation is a major concern in numerous countries, with groups of citizens trying to implement a moratorium until thorough research on adverse effects on human health and the environment has been performed. An appeal for a moratorium, currently signed by >390 international scientists and medical doctors, was sent to the European Union (EU) in September 2017 (18), currently with no EU response (19). Several regions have implemented a moratorium on the deployment of 5G motivated by the lack of studies on health effects, for instance Geneva (20).

In the present article, the current situation in Switzerland is discussed as an example (21). Additionally, the ICNIRP 2020 evaluation is discussed (8).

Several Swiss citizens have brought to our attention that Associate Professor Martin Röösli is the chair of two important government expert groups in Switzerland (directeur), despite possible COIs and a history of misrepresentation of science (22,23). These groups are Beratende Expertengruppe NIS (BERENIS; the Swiss advisory expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation) (24), and the subgroup 3, the Mobile Communications and Radiation Working Group of the Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications/Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation, evaluating RF-radiation health risks from 5G technology (25,26).

The conclusions made in the recent Swiss government 5G report are biased and can be found here (27,28). This 5G report concluded that there is an absence of short-term health impacts and an absence or insufficient evidence of long-term effects [see Table 17 (Tableau 17) on page 69 in the French version (27) and Table 17 (Tabelle 17) on page 67 in the German version (28)].

Furthermore, it was reported that there is limited evidence for glioma, neurilemmoma (schwannoma) and co-carcinogenic effects, and insufficient evidence for effects on children from prenatal exposure or from their own mobile phone use. Regarding cognitive effects, fetal development and fertility (sperm quality), the judgement was that the evidence on harmful effects is insufficient. These evaluations were strikingly similar to those of the ICNIRP (see Appendix B in ICNIRP 2020; 8). Other important endpoints, such as effects on blood-brain barrier, cell proliferation, apoptosis (programmed cell death), oxidative stress (reactive oxygen species) and gene and protein expression, were not evaluated.

According to Le Courrier November 19, 2019, Martin Röösli presented the conclusion in an interview in the following way: ‘Sur l'aspect sanitaire pur, «le groupe de travail constate que, jusqu'à présent, aucun effet sanitaire n'a été prouvé de manière cohérente en dessous des valeurs limites d'immissions fixées», résume Martin Röösli, professeur d'épidémiologie environnementale à l'Institut tropical et de santé publique suisse’ (29). [Regarding the health issue, the working group concludes that, until now, no health effect has been consistently proven below the given exposure limits, summarizes Martin Röösli, professor in environmental epidemiology at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute].

This Swiss evaluation is scientifically inaccurate and is in opposition to the opinion of numerous scientists in this field (18). In addition, 252 electromagnetic field (EMF) scientists from 43 countries, all with published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have stated that:

‘Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that RF-EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life’ (30).

We are concerned that the Swiss 5G report may be influenced by ties to mobile phone companies (COIs) by one or several members of the evaluating group.

Funding from telecom companies is an obvious COI. Martin Röösli has been a member of the board of the telecom funded Swiss Research Foundation for Electricity and Mobile Communication (FSM) organization and he has received funding from the same organization (31–33).

It should be noted that the FSM is a foundation that serves formally as an intermediate between industry and researchers. According to their website, among the five founders of FSM who ‘provided the initial capital of the Foundation’ four are telecommunications companies: Swisscom, Salt, Sunrise, 3G Mobile (liquidated in 2011). The fifth founder is ETH Zurich (technology and engineering university). There are only two sponsors, Swisscom (telecommunications) and Swissgrid (energy), who ‘support the FSM with annual donations that allow for both the management of the Foundation and research funding’ (34).

The same situation applies to being a member of ICNIRP (Table I) (35). In 2008, the Ethical Council at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm stated that being a member of ICNIRP is a potential COI. Such membership should always be declared. This verdict was based on activities by Anders Ahlbom in Sweden, at that time a member of ICNIRP, but is a general statement (2008-09-09; Dnr, 3753-2008-609). In summary: ‘It is required that all parties clearly declare ties and other circumstances that may influence statements, so that decision makers and the public may be able to make solid conclusions and interpretations. AA [Anders Ahlbom] should thus declare his tie to ICNIRP whenever he makes statements on behalf of authorities and in other circumstances’ (translated into English).

COIs with links to industry are of great importance; these links may be direct or indirect funding for research, payment of travel expenses, participation in conferences and meetings, presentation of research, etc. Such circumstances are not always declared as exemplified above. A detailed description was recently presented for ICNIRP members (22).

ICNIRP is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. Members are selected via an internal process, and the organization lacks transparency and does not represent the opinion of the majority of the scientific community involved in research on health effects from RF radiation. Independent international EMF scientists in this research area have declared that: ‘In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields. ICNIRP continues to the present day to make these assertions, in spite of growing scientific evidence to the contrary. It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health’ (30).

ICNIRP only acknowledges thermal effects from RF radiation. Therefore, the large body of research on detrimental non-thermal effects is ignored. This was further discussed in a peer-reviewed scientific comment article (3).

In 2018, ICNIRP published ‘ICNIRP Note: Critical Evaluation of Two Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Animal Carcinogenicity Studies Published in 2018’ (36). It is surprising that this note claims that the histopathological evaluation in the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on animals exposed to RF radiation was not blinded (12,13). In fact, unfounded critique of the NTP study had already been rebutted (37); however, this seems to have had little or no impact on this ICNIRP note casting doubt on the findings of the animal study: ‘This commentary addresses several unfounded criticisms about the design and results of the NTP study that have been promoted to minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR [radiofrequency radiation] for assessing human health risks. In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed, and that the results demonstrated that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR were carcinogenic to the heart (schwannomas) and brain (gliomas) of male rats’ (37).

In contrast to the opinion of the 13 ICNIRP commission members, the IARC advisory group of 29 scientists from 18 countries has recently stated that the cancer bioassay in experimental animals and mechanistic evidence warrants high priority re-evaluation of the RF radiation-induced carcinogenesis (38).

The only substantiated adverse health effects caused by exposure to radiofrequency EMFs are nerve stimulation, changes in the permeability of cell membranes, and effects due to temperature elevation. There is no evidence of adverse health effects at exposure levels below the restriction levels in the ICNIRP (1998) guidelines and no evidence of an interaction mechanism that would predict that adverse health effects could occur due to radiofrequency EMF exposure below those restriction levels’.

The ICNIRP draft (39) has been previously described to some extent (19). The published final version on health effects is virtually similar to the draft. It cannot be taken at face value as scientific evidence of no risk from RF radiation. One example is the following statement (p. 41): ‘…a set of case-control studies from the Hardell group in Sweden report significantly increased risks of both acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumors already after less than five years since the start of mobile phone use, and at quite low levels of cumulative call time’.

This allegation is not correct according to our publication for glioma (11). In the shortest latency group >1–5 years, the risk of glioma was not increased (odds ratio (OR), 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4) for use of wireless phones (mobile phone and/or cordless phone). There was a statistically significant increased risk of glioma per 100 h of cumulative use (OR, 1.011; 95% CI, 1.008-1.014) and per year of latency (OR, 1.032; 95% CI, 1.019-1.046) (11). These published results are in contrast to the ICNIRP claims.

Regarding acoustic neuroma, the corresponding detailed results are reported in our previous study (57). The shortest latency period >1–5 years yielded an OR of 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6) for use of wireless phones; the risk increased per 100 h of cumulative use (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.002-1.014) and per year of latency (OR, 1.056; 95% CI, 1.029-1.085) (57). Therefore, the allegation by ICNIRP is false.

It is remarkable that ICNIRP is uninformed and that their writing is based on a misunderstanding of the peer-reviewed published articles as exemplified above. Additionally, our studies (11,57) and another study by Coureau et al (58), as well as the IARC evaluation from 2011 (1,2), are not included among the references. Several statements by ICNIRP are made without any scientific references. On the other hand, the Danish cohort study on mobile phone use (59) is included, in spite of the fact that it was judged by IARC (1,2), as well as in our review (60), to be uninformative. A biased article written by authors including ICNIRP members, used to ‘prove’ the no-risk paradigm for RF radiation carcinogenesis (23), is cited by ICNIRP. Notably, the article has not undergone relevant peer-review and we believe that it should not have been published in its current version. The shortcomings in the aforementioned article are discussed in the following sections. As discussed below, another claim (23) is incorrect regarding increased risk of brain tumors associated with use of wireless phones: ‘However, they are not consistent with trends in brain cancer incidence rates from a large number of countries or regions, which have not found any increase in the incidence since mobile phones were introduced’.

The criticism of the ICNIRP draft guidelines from 2018 by the EMF call (61) can also be applied to the current ICNIRP publication. The call has been signed by 164 scientists and medical doctors, as well as 95 NGOs: ‘The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).1 These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines.2 The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment. ICNIRP guidelines only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. The guidelines do not protect against harmful effects from low-intensity and long-term exposure, such as cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although these effects are convincingly shown to appear from chronic exposure at intensities below ICNIRP limits.2,3

ICNIRP's mandate to issue exposure guidelines needs to be seriously questioned. ICNIRP is not independent of industry ties as it claims.12,13 Its opinions are not objective, not representative of the body of scientific evidence, but are biased in favor of industry. It is obvious from their reluctance to consider scientific findings of harm that ICNIRP protects industry, not the public health, nor the environment.

We ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all governments to support the development and consideration of medical guidelines16, that are independent of conflict of interests in terms of direct or indirect ties to industry, that represent the state of medical science, and that are truly protective’.

In the recent report on ICNIRP published by two Members of the European Parliament it is concluded: ‘That is the most important conclusion of this report: For really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP. The European Commission and national governments, from countries like Germany, should stop funding ICNIRP. It is high time that the European Commission creates a new, public and fully independent advisory council on non-ionizing radiation’ (22).

There is no doubt that several individuals included in Table I are influential, being members, as well as having consulting assignments, in several organizations, such as ICNIRP, BERENIS, the SSM, the Program Electromagnetic Fields and Health from ZonMw in the Netherlands, and the Rapid Response Group for the Japan EMF Information Center (74).

In fact, there appears to be a cartel of individuals working on this issue (75). Associate Professor Martin Röösli has had the chance to provide his view on the content of the present article relating to him. The only message from him was in an e-mail dated January 16, 2020: ‘Just to be clear, all my research is funded by public money or not-for -profit fundations [foundations]. I think you will not help an important debate if you spread fake news’. Obviously, as described in the present article, his comment is not correct considering his funding from the telecom industry (76,77).

As shown in Table I, few individuals, and mostly the same ones, are involved in different evaluations of health risks from RF radiation and will thus propagate the same views on the risks in agencies of different countries associated with the ICNIRP views (4,5). Therefore, it is unlikely that they will change their opinions when participating in different organizations. Furthermore, their competence in natural sciences, such as medicine, is often low or non-existent due to a lack of education in these disciplines (2). Therefore, any chance for solid evaluations of medical issues is hampered. Additionally, it must be concluded that if the ‘thermal only’ dogma is dismissed, this will have wide consequences for the whole wireless community, including permissions for base stations, regulations of the wireless technology and marketing, plans to roll out 5G, and it would therefore have a large impact on the industry. This may explain the resistance to acknowledge the risk by ICNIRP, EU, WHO, SSM and other agencies. However, the most important aspects to consider are human wellbeing and a healthy environment. Telecoms can make profit in a variety of ways, and wireless is just one of them. They have the capacity to maintain profits by using different techniques, such as optical fiber, that will provide more data with less RF radiation exposure. Particularly when considering the liability, they are incurring in their misguided insistence of wireless expansion that may ultimately catch up to them in the form of lawsuits, such as those previously experienced by asbestos and tobacco companies (78,79).

A recent book describes how deception is used to capture agencies and hijack science (80). There are certain tools that can be used for this. One is to re-analyze existing data using methods that are biased towards predetermined results (23). For example, this can be performed by hiring ‘independent experts’ to question scientific results and create doubt (81,82). As clearly discussed in a number of chapters of the books (80–82), front groups may be created to gain access to politicians and to influence the public with biased opinions. Other methods may involve intimidating and harassing independent scientists that report health risks based on sound science, or removing all funding from scientists who do not adhere to the no-risk pro-industry paradigm. Another tool would be economic support and courting decision makers with special information sessions that mislead them on science and mask bribery (3,5,19,80–82). An industry with precise marketing goals has a big advantage over a loose scientific community with little funding. Furthermore, access to regulatory agencies and overwhelming them with comments on proposed regulations is crucial (3). To counteract all these actions is time consuming and not always successful (19). Nevertheless, it is important that these circumstances are explored and published in the peer-reviewed literature as historical notes for future use.

Based on the Swiss and ICNIRP experiences, some recommendations can be made. One is to include only unbiased and experienced experts without COIs for evaluation of health risks from RF radiation. All countries should declare a moratorium on 5G until independent research, performed by scientists without any ties to the industry, confirms its safety or not. 2G, 3G, 4G and WiFi are also considered not to be safe, but 5G will be worse regarding harmful biological effects (42,83,84). The authors of the present article recommend an educational campaign to educate the public about the health risks of RF radiation exposure, and safe use of the technology, such as the deployment of wired internet in schools (85), as previously recommended by the European Council resolution 1815 in 2011 (86) and The EMF Scientist Appeal (87). Additionally, it is recommended that the government takes steps to markedly decrease the current exposure of the public to RF radiation, (88,89). Notably, DNA damage has been identified in peripheral blood lymphocytes using the comet assay technique, and in buccal cells using the micronucleus assay, in individuals exposed to RF radiation from base stations (90).

Finally, an alternative approach to the flawed ICNIRP safety standards may be the comprehensive work of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) EMF working group that has resulted in safety recommendations, which are free from the ICNIRP shortcomings (50). Recently, the International Guidelines on Non-Ionising Radiation (IGNIR) have accepted EUROPAEM safety recommendations (91). The Bioinitiative group has recommended similar safety standards based on non-thermal EMF effects (92). WHO and all nations should adopt the EUROPAEM/Bioinitiative/IGNIR safety recommendations, supported by the majority of the scientific community, instead of the obsolete ICNIRP standards.

In conclusion, it is important that all experts evaluating scientific evidence and assessing health risks from RF radiation do not have COIs or bias. Being a member of ICNIRP and being funded by the industry directly, or through an industry-funded foundation, constitute clear COIs. Furthermore, it is recommended that the interpretation of results from studies on health effects of RF radiation should take sponsorship from the telecom or other industry into account. It is concluded that the ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.