13. ICNIRP, Page 2
Updated: January 29, 2026
Page 1. June 2019 – March 2023: available here
Page 2. April 2023 – Newest on the top
Pinned article
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS:
ICBE-EMF
FCC and ICNIRP Human Exposure Limits Inadequate to Protect Health or Environment
https://icbe-emf.org/fcc-and-icnirp-limits/
2026
85. “They Kept Telling Us What To Do”
A Rare Look Behind the RF Curtain at WHO
Review of Animal Studies Takes Center Stage
https://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/they-kept-telling-us-what-do
Published: January 28, 2026
In. Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
Related article:
Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review
https://multerland.blog/2025/05/01/effects-of-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-field-exposure-on-cancer-in-laboratory-animal-studies-a-systematic-review/
Published: April 25, 2025
In: Science Direct
2025
84. FCC & ICNIRP limits Lack A Scientific Basis
https://multerland.blog/2025/12/18/fcc-icnirp-limits-lack-a-scientific-basis/
Published: December 18, 2025
In: Newsletter ICBE-EMF
83. Review: The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety
https://rdcu.be/eJIoV
Published: 02 October 2025
In: BMC, Part of Springer Nature / Environmental Health
By: Ronald L. Melnick, Joel M. Moskowitz, Paul Héroux, Erica Mallery-Blythe, Julie E. McCredden, Martha Herbert, Lennart Hardell, Alasdair Philips, Fiorella Belpoggi, John W. Frank, Theodora Scarato & Elizabeth Kelley On Behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)
Conclusions – Instead of assessing the scientific evidence on human health risks from RF-EMF exposures comprehensively, these SRs create a false sense of safety that undermines public health protection.
In light of the mounting scientific evidence from research studies published over the past 30 years, including the studies on cancer and on reproductive effects in experimental animals reported in SR2, SR4A, and SR4B, and the widespread and increasing exposure of populations to RF-EMF, there is a clear need to reduce exposures and strengthen safety limits, especially for pregnant women, children, and people with chronic health conditions.
Because the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits are outdated and based on invalid health assumptions1, revised science-based guidelines that are protective of human health and the environment are urgently needed.
Due to serious flaws in the reviews and MAs, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones or other wireless communication devices and should not be relied upon for the forthcoming WHO EHC monograph.
Comment by Dr. Louis Slesin (Microwave News):
WHO Gets an ‘F’ on RF ICBE-EMF:
Health Reviews Suffer from Faulty Analysis & ICNIRP Bias
Published: October 3, 2025
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
In: MicrowaveNews
82. INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM: Article about ICNIRP’s meddling in scientific research results on cancer by putting severe pressure and forcing endless delays.
Waiting for “NTP Lite”
Japanese/Korean Project Two Years Late
Unlikely To Resolve NTP Cancer Findings
Published: June 16, 2025
In: MicrowaveNews
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/waiting-“ntp-lite”
81. DOCUMENTARY: 5G THE UNTOLD STORY – with also information about ICNIRP, WHO, their ties with Big Tech, Telecom, and their contribution to the real-world situation where soon all world citizens will have to deal with.
80. The EMF call, 2018 – It is launched by November 26, 2018, signed by 164 scientists and medical doctors together with 95 non-governmental organizations. List of signatories
New medical guidelines need to be developed that represent the state of medical science and are truly protective. They also need to be developed without any industry influence.
The EMF Call also urges all governments, the UN and the WHO not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines, issued as draft on 11th July 2018. ICNIRP’s guidelines pose a serious risk to human health and the environment. They allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable. They are not protective. They do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation.
Note by Multerland: the current ICNIRP guidelines are, despite a more recent “update”, proven to be unchanged, which means still not protective.
79. PHIRE – Dr. Erica Mallory-Blythe
ICNIRP ‘safety’ guidelines are not protective
https://phiremedical.org/safety-limits-and-political-conflicts-of-interest/
78. ICBE-EMF – May 13, 2025 – Dr. Erica Mallory-Blythe (PHIRE) – Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity and EMF Limits
77. Microwave News – April 27, 2025 – WHO Review Finds Cancer Risk in RF-Exposed Animals – At Odds with ICNIRP, Most Health Agencies
76. [See also 73, 74, 75]New review: Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson demand withdrawal. 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, published February 2025.
Conflicts of interest: The WHO’s compilation was carried out by people with conflicts of interest: three of the authors are, for example, members of ICNIRP. This is the organization that recommended the limit values that apply to mobile radiation and that only protect against immediate warming effects of short-term exposure to very intense radiation. It therefore lacks protection against cancer risks.
Since there are very large financial interests built into the limit value on the part of telecom companies, it involves a serious conflict of interest to act as a reviewer for WHO of research in the field and at the same time support ICNIRP’s heavily criticized limit values. ICNIRP is considered an industry-friendly organization.
75. ICNIRP/BfS studies: Scientists demand withdrawal
https://multerland.blog/2025/01/27/icnirp-bfs-studies-scientists-demand-withdrawal/
ICNIRP/BfS-Studien: Wissenschaftler fordern Rücknahme
IEEE-Magazin: Prof. James C. Lin unterstützt die Forderung
https://www.diagnose-funk.org/aktuelles/artikel-archiv/detail?newsid=2169
Published: January 24, 2025
74. ICBE-EMF Sees “Serious Flaws” in WHO Systematic Review on RF–Cancer Risk
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/old-wine-new-bottles#ICBE-EMF
Published: January 15, 2025
In: MicrowaveNews
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
2024
73. Biased WHO-commissioned review claims no cancer link to cellphone use
https://multerland.blog/2024/09/16/biased-who-commissioned-review-claims-no-cancer-link-to-cellphone-use/ , a comment on ICNIRP-SEG member Karipidis et al. (2024) review [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983]
Written by: Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev
Published: September 11, 2024
By: Joel Moskovitz, PhD
In: Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
URL: https://www.saferemr.com/2024/
72. Brennpunkt: International Commission on Limit Values ICBE-EMF wants stricter mobile phone limits
Study proves: current ICNIRP limits are unscientific
The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) is calling for new limits that take the current state of research into account. In its article, the ICBE-EMF shows why the existing limits are unscientific and have no protective function. The ICBE-EMF article exposes the rotten core of mobile phone policy: The setting of limits by the ICNIRP was the pragmatic legitimization of the mobile phone industry’s business model. diagnose:funk presents a German version of the article. This is one of the most important “Brennpunkt”s that we have published so far.
English translation of the diagnose:funk article, published in August 2024 in Multerland: https://multerland.blog/2024/08/06/study-proves-current-icnirp-limits-are-unscientific/
“The ICNIRP has a political function. It safeguards the business of the mobile radio industry. The ICNIRP’s interpretive authority was called into question in 2019 after Investigate Europe – a team of journalists – published a detailed Analyse im Tagesspiegel. Their verdict: The ICNIRP is a protective wall for industry.
The following year, two members of the European Parliament, Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi, published a 98-page report on the ICNIRP entitled “Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G”. They called the ICNIRP “one-sided” and without medical qualifications to assess health risks. Criticisms in specialist journals are piling up, and the ICNIRP and the BfS [Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, located in the same building as ICNIRP] are evading them.
The statement by the ICBE-EMF limit value commission is a crucial document because it proves with new details that the ICNIRP guidelines have no protective function. With the evidence from ICBE-EMF, supported by the EESC (European Economic and Social Committee)‘s call to replace ICNIRP, their thermal house of cards is beginning to shake.”
71. Mobile telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells
Published: March, 2024
In: ResearchGate
By: Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
Lyn McLean [EMR Australia] in her article Mobile Phones And Gamma Radiation about the study (excerpt):
ICNIRP
According to Panagopoulos, ‘a single MT [mobile phone] EMF exposure [approximately] 136 times lower than the most recent ICNIRP* (2020) limit induced chromosomal aberrations in a slightly higher degree than a caffeine dose [approximately] 290 times higher than the permissible single caffeine dose for an adult human.’
He says that this shows that international limits for EMF exposure are vastly too lax. ‘…the exposure limits set for microwave EMFs by ICNIRP (2020) may be enormously less stringent (~136×290 or ~40000 times) than those for caffeine, and thus, should be lowered by (at least) ~40000 (forty thousand) times.’
Panagopoulos draws a similar conclusion by comparing the chromosome damage caused by mobile phone and gamma radiation. He says, ‘the exposure limits for microwave EMFs set by ICNIRP (2020) may be enormously less stringent (~136×1000/3 or ~4.5×104 = 45000 times) than those for gamma radiation.’
This means that exposures to mobile phone and other types of wireless communication radiation should have a power density of no more than 0.1 µW/cm2 for short-term exposures and 0.001 µW/cm2 for long-term exposures (instead of the ICNIRP limit which is 4000 µW/cm2 averaged over 6 mins). Panagopoulos says these lower levels are in line with those recommended by other experts.
This paper suggests the importance of considering mobile phone radiation with other environmental and health stressors.
‘Since anthropogenic EMF exposure at different frequency bands of the spectrum (RF, ELF, etc.) constitutes a new reality in daily life for everyone, its combination with a variety of other existing stressors on human/biological systems (such as development, aging, sickness, infections, ionizing radiation, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, smoking, coffee drinking, psychological stress, etc.) should be examined as a priority by future studies,’ Panagopoulos says.
Panagopoulos, DJ. (2024). Mobile telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells. General Physiology and Biophysics. 2024. 103-120. 10.4149/gpb_2023036.
*ICNIRP: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (Australia’s radiation standard is in line with the Guidelines produced by ICNIRP.)
ICNIRP: see PDF of the study, go to “discussion”, pages 110 -116
70. ICNIRP Guidelines’ Exposure Assessment Method for 5G Millimetre Wave Radiation May Trigger Adverse Effects – link to Academia / PDF
Published: March 27, 2023
By: Donald Maisch
In: Academia
Reply Donald Maisch to Kenneth Foster [ICNIRP relation] and Quirino Balzano: PDF
69. Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative / See chapter 2 / Note: Frank de Vocht, where often is referred to, has become an ICNIRP commissioner. See article number 04.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1339513/full
Published: January 12, 2024
In: Frontiers / Public Health
By: Steven Weller, Julie E. McCredden
2023
68. ICNIRP Revamp: Closer Ties to WHO EMF Project
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/icnirp-revamp-closer-ties-who-emf-project
Published: December 11, 2023
In: Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
67. 5G exposé, Mona Nilsson: ICNIRP
ICNIRP and industry influence
Published: October 27, 2023
66. ICNIRP Still Runs RF at WHO https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/icnirp-still-runs-rf-who
Published: June 5, 2023
In: Microwave News
By: Dr. Louis Slesin
65. RF Health Safety Limits and Recommendations [Health Matters] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10121536
Published: May 8, 2023
In: IEEE
By: James C. Lin
64. Critique of EU Commission expert opinion report on radiofrequency radiation from wireless technology – EU Commission hand-picked expert report authors known for bias towards telecom business needs
https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/critique-of-eu-commission-expert-opinion-report-on-radiofrequency-radiation-from-wireless-technology-eu-commission-hand-picked-expert-report-authors-known-for-bias-towards-telecom-business-n/
Published: April 25, 2023
In: Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation / Strålskyddsstiftelsen
Older: here (§2)
- International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 2022;18(1):92. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 . ↩︎
