WHO Is Wrong About Health Risk From Cellphone Use Says Russian Expert
Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev, a renowned global expert on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, has publicly criticized a WHO-commissioned review for downplaying the cancer risks linked to cellphone use. In a scathing statement, Grigoriev lambasted the Karipidis et al. (2024) review, which concluded that no credible evidence exists to link radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) from cellphones to cancer.
Grigoriev asserts that the review was conducted by a group of lesser-known scientists who lacked fundamental expertise in the field of electromagnetic biology. He accuses them of relying on a methodology and analysis criteria developed by others, while ignoring a substantial body of evidence that has emerged over decades. According to him, these scientists are not affiliated with established scientific institutions that study the biomedical effects of electromagnetism, and their conclusions are questionable at best.
Misleading the Public and Healthcare Systems
The crux of Grigoriev’s argument is that these scientists are misleading not only the public but also healthcare systems worldwide. He contends that their biased conclusions absolve wireless companies and regulators of responsibility for the potential health risks associated with RF-EMF exposure. According to Grigoriev, this group of researchers, who speak on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), lacks the authority to make such categorical conclusions.
He further states that science, by its very nature, is fluid and evolving, using the analogy that even geometry has shifted from Euclidean to non-Euclidean and the theory of relativity is now relative. He stresses that no final judgments should be made on the effects of electromagnetic fields, as the science is still developing, particularly in terms of human exposure to these fields.
A Two-Decade-Old Discussion
The potential carcinogenic effects of radio frequencies (RF) have been a focal point of international research for over two decades. Since 1996, the WHO International Electromagnetic Project has included this topic, with numerous discussions and studies attempting to shed light on the issue.
Grigoriev notes that he has personally been involved in these discussions since 1997. Every scientist working in the field—whether through animal experiments, volunteer studies, or epidemiological research—understands the risks of making categorical statements like “this exists” or “this does not exist.” According to him, this is particularly true in a complex area such as the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
“Old Wine in New Bottles”: Decoding WHO’s Review
Grigoriev’s critique has been echoed by other experts in the field, including those at Microwave News, which reported on the 20-year history behind efforts by organizations such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) to downplay the cancer risks posed by cellphone radiation.
A recent article titled “Old Wine in New Bottles” published on September 11, 2024, provides a detailed look at how the same ICNIRP-affiliated scientists have been making similar claims for two decades. According to Microwave News, the Karipidis et al. review is simply the latest attempt to dismiss cancer risks, and the WHO’s involvement only adds to the controversy.
Regulatory Capture and Conflicts of Interest
At the heart of Grigoriev’s criticism is the regulatory capture by organizations such as ICNIRP, which have long rejected any cancer risk associated with cellphone radiation. As reported by Microwave News, members of ICNIRP have consistently stood by their “no-cancer dogma” despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The commission, according to critics, operates like a “self-perpetuating club,” where allegiance to a predetermined narrative is required.
The Karipidis team selected by the WHO was never expected to reach any other conclusion, as WHO managers had specifically chosen this group for their well-documented stance on RF-EMF exposure.
The WHO’s Complicity in Biased Science
On September 3, 2024, major news outlets promoted the WHO-commissioned review, claiming there was no cancer link to cellphone use. Grigoriev, however, contends that this review was heavily biased. He argues that the WHO selected scientists who had already demonstrated their bias in prior publications by ignoring or dismissing evidence of harm from wireless radiation.
Moreover, the ICNIRP cartel—exposed by investigative journalists in 2019—continues to wield significant influence over global standards. A series of articles by journalists from eight European countries revealed how this cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines, which are heavily biased in favor of industry, ensuring continued funding for their research.
These conflicts of interest ensure that exposure limits for RF radiation, designed solely to protect humans from thermal effects, remain unchanged. The non-thermal effects—including cancer risk—are conveniently ignored, thus allowing the wireless industry to avoid costly safety upgrades.
Scientific Pushback Against ICNIRP’s “Thermal-Only Paradigm”
The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has been among the loudest voices refuting ICNIRP’s outdated standards. In a peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Health (2022), the commission presented substantial evidence invalidating the assumptions underlying FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits for RF radiation.
The report highlights the non-thermal effects of cellphone radiation, particularly in relation to 5G technology, urging regulators to reconsider the obsolete safety standards that continue to put public health at risk. The commission’s findings are supported by more than 3,800 peer-reviewed studies.
The Role of the WHO in Supporting ICNIRP’s Agenda
The WHO’s involvement with ICNIRP has long been a source of controversy. Despite the mounting evidence of harm from RF-EMF exposure, the WHO continues to rely on ICNIRP’s biased research, which downplays the potential risks.
Grigoriev and other experts have noted that ICNIRP’s control over the narrative has had significant implications for public health policies worldwide. The commission’s refusal to acknowledge non-thermal biological effects ensures that exposure limits remain inadequate to protect populations, particularly vulnerable groups such as children.
Case-Control Studies vs. WHO’s New Review
A critical area of contention between Grigoriev’s findings and the new WHO review is the methodological differences in assessing cancer risks. According to Grigoriev, the WHO review relies heavily on cohort and time-trend studies, which are prone to inaccuracies in establishing causal links.
In contrast, Grigoriev’s 2020 systematic review of 46 case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to an increased tumor risk, particularly among users with 1,000 or more hours of lifetime cellphone use. This corresponds to about 17 minutes of daily phone usage over a 10-year period.
Biased WHO Findings Under Scrutiny
In their review, Karipidis et al. concluded that there was “moderate certainty” that near-field RF-EMF exposure to the head from mobile phone use did not increase the risk of tumors such as glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma in adults. For children, they found low certainty evidence that there was no link between pediatric brain tumors and cellphone use.
Grigoriev, along with his colleagues, strongly disagrees with these conclusions, highlighting that their own analysis arrived at a very different set of findings.
Scientific Evidence Will Stand the Test of Time
While Grigoriev acknowledges that no scientific literature review is perfect, he is confident that the 2020 case-control studies linking cellphone use to cancer will withstand the test of time. According to him, the conclusions reached by the Karipidis review will not, and they do not adequately address the growing concerns about RF radiation’s non-thermal effects.
Grigoriev and his team plan to continue rebutting biased findings and urge the scientific community to re-examine the evidence in a more transparent and unbiased manner.
This growing dispute highlights the significant rift between those who seek to protect public health and those accused of putting corporate interests first. With RF radiation exposure becoming an ever-more prominent public health issue, only time will tell which side of the debate prevails.
Sources:
- “Old Wine in New Bottles: Decoding New WHO–ICNIRP Cancer Review; Game Over? Likely Not,” Microwave News, Sept 11, 2024.
- Karipidis K, Baaken D, Loney T, Blettner M, Brzozek C, Elwood M, Narh C, Orsini N, Röösli M, Paulo MS, Lagorio S. “The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies,” Environment International, 2024
