A Debate over Mobile Radiation Safety
Is radiation from mobile technology dangerous? As the world rolls out 5G, thousands of studies on 2G–4G exposures exist, yet experts fiercely disagree on the health implications emraustralia.com.au. Many scientists are sounding the alarm about potential risks from long-term low-level exposure. However, most official radiation safety authorities insist current limits are safe and dismiss these concerns. Crucially, they base their assurances on advice from a small circle of insiders who dominate key committees and set safety limits scientists4wiredtech.com. This investigation explores the connections among those scientists, the organizations they influence, and the controversies over whether current mobile radiation standards truly protect the public.
ICNIRP: The Private Group Setting Global Standards
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is at the center of this issue. ICNIRP is a German-registered private association of scientists that, soon after its 1992 inception, became the de facto global standard-setter for radiofrequency (RF) radiation limits. Most European governments – and even the World Health Organization (WHO) – rely on ICNIRP’s guidelines when adopting national exposure limits.
Despite its far-reaching influence, ICNIRP operates as a closed “private club.” Its scientific commission has at most 14 members who are self-selected rather than openly elected scientists4wiredtech.com. New members are invited by the existing ICNIRP leadership, not by any broad professional vote scientists4wiredtech.com. “ICNIRP does not have an open process for the election of new members. It is a self-perpetuating group with no dissent allowed,” observes Louis Slesin, a veteran journalist and editor of Microwave News scientists4wiredtech.com. In practice, scientists who argue that evidence is sufficient to justify stricter safety standards have been excluded from ICNIRP’s ranks【27†look 0 949】. This insular structure has led critics to question whether an organization with such outsized policy impact should be so lacking in transparency and outside oversight scientists4wiredtech.com.
ICNIRP insists it upholds high scientific rigor in its membership and assessments. Mike Repacholi – an RF radiation expert who founded ICNIRP – told investigators that there simply aren’t many highly qualified scientists in this field scientists4wiredtech.com. ICNIRP’s current chair, Dr. Eric van Rongen, added that research alleging harm often “does not meet high scientific standards.” He claims ICNIRP is “not against including scientists who think differently. But they must fill the profile for a specific vacant position.”
Overlapping Roles: A Close-Knit Network of Experts
One striking finding is how tightly networked the small circle of experts is across multiple organizations. Besides ICNIRP, there are several key bodies advising governments on electromagnetic fields (EMF) health effects – including the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks (SCENIHR/SCHEER), the WHO’s EMF Project group, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and national panels like Sweden’s Radiation Safety Authority Council and the UK’s former Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) scientists4wiredtech.com. In theory these groups could offer a wide range of scientific opinions. In reality, they are staffed by a remarkably overlapping cadre of individuals scientists4wiredtech.com.
Investigate Europe’s research revealed a major overlap among these committees. Out of 13 scientists on ICNIRP’s commission, 6 also sat on at least one other major expert committee. Similarly, “in the WHO group, six out of seven members” were also serving in other advisory bodies
. Even the EU’s SCENIHR panel that issued radiation safety advice in 2015 shared one-third of its experts with other groups. In short, the same handful of experts rotate through multiple influential panels, forming an echo chamber of opinion. This makes it difficult for dissenting scientific views to gain representation in official safety assessments.
Investigate Europe’s “Who’s Who” map visualizes the web of connections among key scientists and organizations in the EMF research world. ICNIRP (orange node at center) links to various expert committees (green nodes such as WHO EMF, IARC, SCENIHR, national agencies) through shared members. Current committee members are shown in purple and past members in gray. The network reveals a core group of scientists – e.g. Michael Repacholi, Maria Feychting, Anders Ahlbom, Martin Röösli, Zenon Sienkiewicz – who have served on multiple bodies simultaneously. This close-knit structure illustrates how a small circle of insiders has disproportionate influence on global radiation safety standards.
The consequence of this overlap is what Norwegian researcher Einar Flydal calls a “monopoly of opinion.” Flydal, who once worked for telecom firm Telenor, noted that “one group of scientists dominates the entities that provide professional advice on radiation risk,” causing studies by outsiders to “fall under the radar” of policymakers. In effect, a unified viewpoint – often a more reassuring one – repeatedly surfaces in reports, while dissenting evidence is sidelined by the same experts across different forums. Critics argue this homogeneity biases the risk assessment process, whether intentionally or not.
Key Players and Their Dual Roles
A handful of individuals illustrate how scientific advisors wear multiple hats – and raise questions about conflicts of interest:
-
Michael Repacholi – An Australian biophysicist, he founded ICNIRP in the early 1990s and later led the WHO’s EMF health program. Repacholi’s influence is immense: he chaired ICNIRP’s first guidelines and then coordinated global EMF research at WHO investigate-europe.eu. Under his leadership, WHO’s EMF Project quietly received substantial funding from the telecommunications industry in its early years. After retiring from WHO, Repacholi reportedly even consulted for industry lobby groups, prompting accusations of conflict of interest. He remains ICNIRP’s emeritus member and a vocal defender of the status quo.
-
Martin Röösli – A current ICNIRP commissioner from Switzerland, Röösli exemplifies the blurred lines between public health science and telecom industry ties. In his primary job as a professor at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, his institute’s clients include Swisscom, the country’s largest telecom provider signstop5g.eu. He also sits on Switzerland’s national radiation advisory council and on the board of a research foundation (FSM) funded by telecom and power companies signstop5g.eu. Many studies he has overseen were financed by that industry-backed foundation signstop5g.eu. While Röösli acknowledges that “studies which are solely financed by industry are likely to be biased,” he told Investigate Europe that in his view, projects with mixed funding and proper firewalls “did not result in biased research” scientists4wiredtech.com. Nonetheless, his prominent role in setting ICNIRP’s limits while linked to industry-funded projects is often cited as a potential conflict of interest.
-
Anders Ahlbom – A Swedish epidemiologist (now a former ICNIRP member, shown in grey in the network figure), Ahlbom chaired influential studies downplaying mobile phone risks. He was forced to step aside from a 2011 IARC panel on cell phones and cancer after it emerged his brother ran a pro-telecom lobbying firm, raising conflict-of-interest concerns. Ahlbom has publicly stated that in his opinion cell phone radiation poses no cancer risk, and he co-authored past ICNIRP reviews reflecting that stance. His case is often highlighted as an example of insiders’ ties to industry-affiliated activities that may bias their judgments.
-
Maria Feychting – A longtime colleague of Ahlbom at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute and an ICNIRP member (vice-chair for several years), Feychting also served on national and international committees. She was the deputy chair of the 2011 IARC evaluation but dissented from its finding that RF radiation is a possible carcinogen. Feychting has led a major industry-partnered study (the COSMOS project on mobile phone use) and, like others in ICNIRP, maintains that current evidence doesn’t prove hazards. Her presence on multiple panels aligned with ICNIRP’s view exemplifies how like-minded experts reinforce each other’s conclusions across organizations.
-
Dr. Eric van Rongen – A Dutch radiation biologist, van Rongen succeeded Repacholi as ICNIRP chair and also advises the WHO. He has been a central figure formulating ICNIRP’s recent updates. Van Rongen contends that only high-quality research should guide policy and denies any pro-industry bias, yet he acknowledges the group’s composition is limited. “We are not against including scientists who think differently,” he says, “but…” they must meet ICNIRP’s criteria scientists4wiredtech.com. Detractors view this as a convenient filter to keep out scientists who, for example, have found harmful effects.
These are just a few of the interlocking personnel at the heart of the EMF safety debate. Many of them move in and out of roles at ICNIRP, the WHO, national agencies, and even industry-funded initiatives, creating a web of relationships that can be hard to untangle. The close connections between regulators and industry-funded science – sometimes in the same person – fuel the controversy over whether safety standards truly put public health first.
Industry Influence and Conflict of Interest Concerns
A major controversy is whether the telecom industry has undue influence over the science and standard-setting. Investigate Europe’s reporting and subsequent analyses suggest that corporate interests have “hijacked” the scientific debate on mobile radiation stopsmartmetersbc.com. Unlike regulatory bodies that are accountable to governments, ICNIRP is a self-governing NGO, and it has enjoyed support from pro-industry quarters. For instance, ICNIRP operates rent-free on the premises of Germany’s federal radiation protection office and historically received backing from organizations with industry ties ehtrust.org. Critics say this cozy setup makes ICNIRP effectively “the extended arm of the mobile communications industry”, delivering reassuring messages that favor rapid rollout of new technologies ehtrust.org.
One clear example is funding of research. The WHO’s EMF Project (which guides international research priorities and risk reviews) was led by ICNIRP’s Repacholi and, in its early years, received over $150,000 annually from a coalition of telecom firms scientists4wiredtech.com. This was not widely publicized at the time. Such funding arrangements raise red flags: can studies truly be impartial when industry foots the bill? Independent scientists like Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski – a former expert at Finland’s radiation authority – argue that ICNIRP’s recommended limits mainly serve industry’s interests. “ICNIRP’s safety limits primarily take into account the needs of the telecom industry,” Leszczynski says, pointing out that many research fields (like military and telecom) prefer to minimize perceived risks scientists4wiredtech.com. He and others note that scientists who are more critical of RF radiation’s safety “are not represented in ICNIRP, nor in other leading RF-EMR expert groups” scientists4wiredtech.com.
From the industry side, telecom companies and lobby groups have every incentive to promote scientific narratives that their products are safe. If regulators accept higher exposure thresholds as safe, companies avoid costly infrastructure changes or liability. Investigate Europe found a pattern wherein studies funded by industry are far less likely to find health risks, whereas independently funded studies more often do citizensforsafertech.ca. Even ICNIRP members tacitly acknowledge this bias – Dr. Martin Röösli explicitly confirms that industry-only studies “are likely to be biased” scientists4wiredtech.com. Despite this, telecom-funded research is often considered in safety reviews, while some adverse findings (e.g. studies showing DNA damage or cancer in animals at low exposures) are dismissed as “unreliable.” Louis Slesin has observed that there is “a lot of politics in deciding what goes into [official risk assessments] and what is left out.” scientists4wiredtech.com In Slesin’s decades-long experience reporting on EMF science, he has seen important data omitted from reviews by panels dominated by the pro-industry faction.
The lack of disclosure and transparency around these connections compounds the ethical concerns. For years, the general public was largely unaware that the same experts setting “safe” exposure limits had consulting gigs or research grants from telecom companies. Only through investigative journalism and independent watchdogs have these links come to light. Now, consumer advocacy groups and some politicians are openly questioning whether conflicts of interest have compromised radiation safety standards. A 2020 commissioned report for the European Parliament went so far as to label ICNIRP a case of “corporate capture,” warning that its influence on 5G policy might be “corrupting” public health decision-making stopsmartmetersbc.com.
One Narrow View of Science
The heart of the scientific controversy is about what evidence is considered in setting safety standards. ICNIRP and the committees it dominates have consistently taken a conservative view of risk, recognizing only immediate, acute effects from RF radiation (basically, tissue heating). Indeed, ICNIRP’s guidelines assume the only established hazard from RF exposure is heating of body tissue scientists4wiredtech.com. The exposure limits in force – adopted by most countries from ICNIRP’s recommendations – are set just low enough to prevent measurable heating of human tissue (with large safety margins) during short-term exposure. By this logic, as long as radiation levels stay below those that produce significant heating (thermal effects), they are deemed “safe.” This position aligns with telecom industry interests, since it permits relatively high emissions from devices and antennas, facilitating robust wireless coverage.
However, a growing number of scientists argue that non-thermal biological effects (effects that occur without noticeable heating) are being ignored. They point to hundreds of peer-reviewed studies reporting impacts such as cellular stress responses, hormone changes, sperm damage, and even elevated cancer rates in animals at levels well below ICNIRP’s limits. For example, an independent review of 2,266 studies by the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Organisation found “significant biological or health effects” in 68% of studies – often at lower-than-allowable exposure levels scientists4wiredtech.com. Another group of researchers (Bioinitiative Group) surveyed around 1,800 studies and likewise concluded that many demonstrated effects that could translate into health risks over time scientists4wiredtech.com.
Yet the “small circle” of experts in ICNIRP-led committees frequently dismiss such findings. They argue many of those studies are inconclusive or methodologically flawed. For instance, when a few long-term animal studies recently found increased tumor rates from cellphone-level radiation, ICNIRP’s experts countered that the results “did not meet our quality criteria” and thus did not warrant lowering human exposure limits. In one case, a panel with ICNIRP members concluded there is no causal link between mobile phones and brain tumors by citing stable brain cancer rates in populations– a conclusion challenged by other researchers who note lag times and specific subtype increases that were overlooked. This selective weighing of evidence has led to accusations that ICNIRP and its allies are “war-gaming” the science – that is, setting the bar for proof so high that virtually no amount of evidence would ever be deemed sufficient to change the safety limits.
The end result of this process is that current safety standards have remained essentially unchanged since the 1990s, despite the advent of new technologies and frequencies. Regulators in the U.S. (FCC) and Canada, for example, still adhere to limits based on ICNIRP’s old thermal model, even for new millimeter-wave 5G signals stopsmartmetersbc.com. From the establishment viewpoint, this consistency indicates that decades of research have not definitively proven any new dangers. But from the critics’ perspective, it demonstrates a dangerous inertia – a refusal to acknowledge mounting evidence of risk. They worry that if the advisory groups are dominated by industry-friendly scientists, the standards will always err on the side of leniency, potentially leaving the public inadequately protected.
Public Health Implications and Calls for Reform
These intertwining relationships and controversies have serious implications. If indeed a “closed club” of experts with industry ties is setting the global agenda on EMF safety, legitimate health concerns might be suppressed or ignored in policy-making. This could mean that the public is being reassured about safety based on partial science, and that current radiation exposure limits are not as protective as they should be. As one investigative report bluntly stated, “throughout the world, ICNIRP guidelines are the de facto standards… The only problem is that they are not safe.” signstop5g.eu
Critics contend that issues like long-term exposure, multiple simultaneous signals, and vulnerable populations (children, pregnant women) have not been adequately addressed under the existing guidelines signstop5g.eu.
In response to these concerns, calls for reform are growing louder. Independent scientists and medical professionals have signed appeals (one petition signed by over 400 doctors and experts was sent to the FCC) urging that safety limits be reconsidered in light of new research stopsmartmetersbc.com. Consumer rights groups and environmental organizations in Europe (e.g. Diagnose:funk in Germany) are campaigning to shine light on ICNIRP’s makeup. “The facts are now clear: ICNIRP… is the extended arm of the cell phone industry and a ‘closed club’ without democratic legitimation,” says Jörn Gutbier of Diagnose:funk, citing Investigate Europe’s findings ehtrust.org. These groups demand greater transparency, independent oversight, and inclusion of a broader range of scientists (including those who publish research finding harm) in setting standards. They also urge agencies like Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection and the WHO to distance themselves from ICNIRP’s influence and instead convene truly impartial expert panels ehtrust.org.
Some policymakers have taken note. In 2020, two Members of the European Parliament commissioned a 98-page report investigating ICNIRP. That report concluded there were clear conflicts of interest and “corporate capture” in the current system stopsmartmetersbc.com. It recommended that European regulators apply the precautionary principle more rigorously and fund more independent EMF research, rather than relying on ICNIRP’s pronouncements. Similarly, courts in some countries have begun to recognize the controversy; in 2021, a court in Italy even ruled that advisory boards dominated by ICNIRP members were not sufficiently neutral, ordering the government to re-examine the science with a more balanced expert group.
Conclusion: Transparency and Diversity of Science as Safeguards
The saga of ICNIRP and mobile radiation standards highlights a fundamental challenge: How can we ensure public health policies reflect the full scope of scientific evidence rather than a filtered subset? The relationships uncovered – where a small network of scientists serves as gatekeepers across multiple organizations – show how easy it is for a consensus to form without substantial external scrutiny. That consensus, in this case, has been that everyday wireless radiation poses no serious health risk. It has guided global standards for decades. But as we’ve seen, this view is not universally shared in the scientific community; it persists in large part due to the influence of certain individuals and their ties to industry-funded bodies.
To make the issues accessible and protect public interest, experts say we need greater transparency (e.g. clear disclosure of any industry funding or roles held by committee members) and greater diversity of expertise on panels (ensuring that scientists who have found evidence of risk are also heard, rather than only those who downplay risks). When one philosophy dominates advisory bodies for too long, science can stagnate and legitimate warnings may be dismissed as fringe. Ensuring a healthy rotation of experts and perhaps term limits or independent review of guideline-setting organizations like ICNIRP could prevent the entrenchment of any single viewpoint or vested interest.
Ultimately, the public relies on scientists to be honest brokers of truth and on regulators to put safety above profits. The story of ICNIRP and mobile radiation safety standards is a cautionary tale about the need to “connect the dots” between who is advising on our health and what interests they might represent. By shining a light on these connections and controversies, investigative journalists and concerned researchers aim to empower policymakers and citizens with knowledge. With 5G and future technologies on the horizon, such vigilance is essential to ensure that safety standards truly serve the public good, guided by all the science – not just the science that aligns with powerful interests
Sources: Investigate Europe (cross-border journalism collective)
; Microwave News editor Louis Slesin
; Environmental Health Trust/Diagnose:funk press release
; European Parliament report on ICNIRP
; STOP 5G campaign analysis
; Scientists for Wired Tech (adapted Investigate Europe content)
; EMR Australia report
; Citizens for Safer Tech briefing
.
