ReviewInternational journal of oncology2017
World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review).
Review in International journal of oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of Occupational Exposure to Radar Radiation on Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Review
- Increasing Numbers of Persons with Sleeping Problems in Sweden.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Nonionizing Electromagnetic Irradiations; Biological Interactions, Human Safety.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2023Review
- Value for combination of TZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023Article
- Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Limits and Engineering Solutions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- ICNIRP Guidelines' Exposure Assessment Method for 5G Millimetre Wave Radiation May Trigger Adverse Effects.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Comment on "5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz" by Karipidis et al.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2023Article
- Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- 2.4 GHz Electromagnetic Field Influences the Response of the Circadian Oscillator in the Colorectal Cancer Cell Line DLD1 to miR-34a-Mediated Regulation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Identifying the knowledge structure of electromagnetic fields and health research: Text network analysis and topic modeling.PloS one · 2022Article
- Simultaneous exposure to electromagnetic field from mobile phone and unimpeded fructose drinking during pre-, peri-, and post-pubertal stages perturbs the hypothalamic and hepatic regulation of energy homeostasis by early adulthood: experimental evidence.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Compact Exposimeter Device for the Characterization and Recording of Electromagnetic Fields from 78 MHz to 6 GHz with Several Narrow Bands (300 kHz).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Sensors for Context-Aware Smart Healthcare: A Security Perspective.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks.World journal of clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Reply to Brzozek et al. Comment on "Choi et al. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effects of Environment and Lifestyle Factors on Anovulatory Disorder.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.