The EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT) Questions
WHO IS ASSESSING THE ASSESSORS?
17th September 2026
The WHO assessment could shape EMF exposure policy for years to come. But who decides what evidence counts? Who decides what gets downgraded or dismissed? And who, if anyone, is independently scrutinising those making those decisions?
Tuesday 13 October 2026 | Brussels and Online
The GSM Association (GSMA), an industry organisation representing mobile operators and companies across the mobile ecosystem, is presenting this year’s EMF Forum under the banner:
“Evidence-Based EMF Policy.”
But when the industry itself is hosting a forum about the health risks of its own technologies, an obvious question arises:
WHOSE EVIDENCE AND WHO IS ASSESSING IT?
The Forum brings together policymakers, regulators, public health experts, researchers, international organisations and representatives of the mobile communications industry.
One of its key sessions is devoted to the WHO Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks.
And this matters because WHO is undertaking a major health-risk assessment of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields which will update its existing Environmental Health Criteria assessment from 1993.
That is more than three decades between assessments.
The outcome could influence exposure guidance, public-health policy and regulatory approaches internationally for years to come.
So the process by which the evidence is assessed matters just as much as the conclusions.
WHO IS ASSESSING THE ASSESSORS?
WHO has commissioned a series of systematic reviews to inform its forthcoming Environmental Health Criteria monograph on RF-EMF, which will update the existing assessment dating from 1993.
That makes a fundamental question unavoidable: how consistently and transparently have those reviews assessed the evidence?
A NEW CROSS-REVIEW AUDIT
On 15 September 2026, Joel Moskowitz published a working paper entitled:
“Inconsistent application of GRADE certainty-of-evidence domains across the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-review audit.”
The audit examined 12 WHO-commissioned RF-EMF systematic reviews and 112 outcome-level certainty ratings.
It reports inconsistencies in the application of the GRADE framework, including different approaches to imprecision, missing upgrade pathways, internal inconsistencies and non-comparable rating scales between reviews.
https://www.saferemr.com/2020/09/cross-review-audit-of-who-rf-emf.html
THE META-ANALYSIS QUESTION
A 2025 peer-reviewed paper by researchers associated with the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) also criticised aspects of the WHO-commissioned reviews.
The authors argue that methodological weaknesses, including problems associated with meta-analysis, heterogeneity, study selection and interpretation, mean that the reviews cannot be regarded as providing assurance of safety.
This criticism should be considered alongside the WHO reviews and responses from their authors.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4
THE MEVISSEN ANIMAL-CANCER REVIEW
The 2025 systematic review by Meike Mevissen and colleagues examined RF-EMF exposure and cancer in laboratory animals.
The review concluded that there was high-certainty evidence that RF-EMF exposure increases the risk of malignant glioma and malignant schwannoma in experimental animals.
A detailed account of the review process and the issues raised around it was subsequently published by Microwave News:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/they-kept-telling-us-what-do
That is a significant finding.
THE WIDER BODY OF EVIDENCE
The WHO reviews are not the only evidence that needs to be considered.
Henry Lai has compiled abstracts from more than 3,000 published studies reporting biological effects associated with electromagnetic fields, including RF exposure. His compilation includes substantial numbers of studies reporting oxidative, genetic, neurological, reproductive and developmental effects.
https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html
The 2022 Balmori review examined studies of people living near mobile-phone base stations. Of the 38 studies included, 28 (73.6%) reported effects, including studies examining cancer, biochemical changes and radiofrequency sickness or hypersensitivity. https://radiationresearch.org/the-evidence-is-clear-living-close-to-a-mobile-phone-mast-has-consequences/
The BioInitiative research summaries likewise compile extensive research reporting biological effects, including genetic, neurological and oxidative effects. https://radiationresearch.org/the-bioinitiative-report-updated-2014-2022/
More recently, Henshaw and Philips (2025) examined proposed biological mechanisms relating to human magnetoreception and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, arguing that existing assumptions about these phenomena warrant further examination.
A PICTURE CAN SAY MORE THAN A THOUSAND WORDS
Henshaw and Philips’ paper contains a figure illustrating the exposure levels discussed in relation to the mechanisms they examine.
FROM HENSHAW & PHILIPS PAPER – FIGURE 2
Ref: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2024.2435329
These sources demonstrate the breadth of research reporting biological or health effects and raise a fundamental question:
HOW IS THIS EVIDENCE BEING WEIGHED IN THE WHO ASSESSMENT?
Which studies are included?
Which are excluded and why?
How are methodological limitations assessed?
How are conflicting findings handled?
And how are studies reporting effects below current guideline levels evaluated?
WHAT EVIDENCE IS BEING CONSIDERED?
WHAT EVIDENCE IS BEING REJECTED?
ON WHAT SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS?
And:
WHO MAKES THOSE DECISIONS?
WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE?
Children also deserve particular attention in any assessment of environmental RF exposure.
Research has examined how age, anatomy and tissue characteristics can affect RF absorption. Dosimetric modelling by Christ and colleagues has reported substantially higher absorption in some tissues under particular exposure scenarios, including 10x higher absorption in skull bone marrow.
The important question is not simply whether exposure complies with existing short-term limits designed primarily to prevent established acute effects such as excessive tissue heating.
The question is: what does the wider body of evidence tell us about the reported health effects of long-term, low-intensity RF-EMF exposure and have those risks been adequately assessed?
HOW WERE THOSE LIMITS THEMSELVES DERIVED AND HOW WILL NEW EVIDENCE BE WEIGHED AGAINST THEM?
IARC AND THE 2011 CANCER CLASSIFICATION
There is also an important part of the scientific history that cannot simply be ignored.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Group 2B possibly carcinogenic to humans.
That classification reflected the evidence available to the IARC Working Group at the time.
The forthcoming WHO process is a broader health-risk assessment.
So another important question is:
HOW WILL THE WHO ASSESSMENT ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS EMERGED SINCE THE 2011 IARC EVALUATION?
And how will the new animal evidence, human epidemiology, mechanistic research and other biological evidence be weighed together?
THE RIGHT TO KNOW
This is about more than transparency.
When a scientific assessment may influence exposure limits, public-health advice and the deployment of widely used technologies, the public should be able to see how the assessment was constructed and who was accountable for it.
That means the process should be sufficiently transparent to allow independent scrutiny of:
- • Who made the key decisions and on what basis?
- • What interests and affiliations did those involved disclose?
- • How were conflicts of interest assessed and managed?
- • Were opportunities provided for independent researchers to challenge or respond to the assessment?
- • Who independently scrutinised the reviewers’ methodology and conclusions?
Ultimately, the question is simple:
Can the public independently examine how the evidence was weighed, how scientific uncertainty was handled, and how the final conclusions were reached?
If the answer is no, then “evidence-based policy” is not enough.
The public has a Right to Know.
PUBLISHING A CONCLUSION IS NOT THE SAME AS SHOWING THE PUBLIC HOW THAT CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.
The public has a right to understand the evidence and the process behind decisions that may affect health policy and exposure standards.
THE RADIATION RESEARCH TRUST IS CALLING FOR
Those assessing the evidence should themselves be subject to independent scrutiny.
We need to know why evidence reporting biological effects is excluded, downgraded or given less weight, and on what scientific basis.
We also need to know how concerns raised by independent scientists, doctors and members of the public are considered within the assessment process.
This is ultimately about trust.
Trust in the researchers conducting the assessments.
Trust in the institutions they represent.
And trust in the policy makers who rely on those assessments when making decisions that affect the public.
That trust cannot be taken for granted. It can be broken.
Policy makers are elected and accountable to the public. They therefore have a responsibility to ensure that the scientific evidence underpinning public health policy is transparent, independently scrutinised and open to legitimate challenge.
If the policy is genuinely “Evidence Based EMF Policy”, then the public has a Right to Know how the evidence is identified, evaluated and interpreted, including evidence and concerns that challenge the prevailing assessment.
And above all:
WHO IS ASSESSING THE ASSESSORS?
The 15th GSMA EMF Forum presents itself as a forum for Evidence-Based EMF Policy.
We agree that all evidence should be at the centre of the discussion.
The public has a Right to Know.
Ask the questions. Examine the evidence. Demand accountability.
15th GSMA EMF FORUM 2026
📅 Tuesday 13 October 2026
📍 Le Louise Hotel, Brussels and Online
The GSMA says the forum will cover the WHO Task Group on RF fields and health risks, international harmonisation of RF-EMF limits, the EU-funded NextGEM project, EMF research monitoring and emerging mobile technologies.
The full programme, speakers and registration information are available from the GSMA: https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/connectivity-for-good/public-policy/gsma_events/emf-forum-2026/
