WHO Research Agenda
for Radiofrequency Fields

ISBN 978 92 4 159994 8

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields.
1.Radio waves - adverse effects. 2.Electromagnetic fields - adverse effects. 3.Environmental
exposure - standards. 4.Risk assessement. 5.Risk management. 6.Research. 7.Radiation
effects. I.World Health Organization.
ISBN 978 92 4 159994 8	

(NLM classification: QT 34)© World Health Organization 2010
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from
WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland(tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: bookorders@who.int). Requests for
permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or fornoncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address(fax: +41 22 791 4806; e-mail: permissions@who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply
that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference toothers of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the namesof proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the
information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being
distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility forthe interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World
Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
Printed in Switzerland

WHO Research Agenda
for Radiofrequency Fields

Acknowledgements
The WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields is based on a technicalconsultation organized by the Department of Public Health and Environment of
the World Health Organization. This document was edited by Dr Richard Saunders (Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom), Dr Eric van Rongen (HealthCouncil of the Netherlands) and Dr Emilie van Deventer (WHO). WHO colleagues– Mr Robert Terry from the Department of Research Policy and Cooperation,
Dr Roderik Viergever from the Department of Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property and Dr Marie-Charlotte Bouësseau from the Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights – provided valuable input which is gratefully
acknowledged.
Several invited participants were unable to attend but provided summaries of
their area of expertise, including Dr David McCormick, IIT Research Institute,
Chicago, Illinois, USA; Dr Julie Barnett, Department of Psychology, Universityof Surrey, United Kingdom; and Dr James McNamee, Health Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and theFrench Ministry of Health and Sports kindly provided funding for this document.

2WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2

List of abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

4

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guiding principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Purpose and audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

5
5
6
6
7
7

2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Process for setting research priority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of experts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

9910

3. Health effects research needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3.1 Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3.2 Human studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3.3 Animal studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Cellular studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3.5 Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
3.6 Dosimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

12
12
15
16
18
20
20

4. Social science research needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

23

5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

26

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

28

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Annex 1. Participants in technical consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Annex 2. Agenda of the technical consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Annex 3. Declarations of interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

35
35
37
38

3

List of abbreviations
AFSSET

Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail

EEG

Electroencephalography

EMC

Electromagnetic compatibility

EMF

Electromagnetic field

GSM

Global System for Mobile Communications

HSP

Heat shock protein

ICNIRPInternational Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

JEM

Job exposure matrix

NIEHS

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (USA)NTP

National Toxicology Program (USA)NRC

National Research Council of the National Academies (USA)RF

Radiofrequency

SAR

Specific absorption rate

WHO

World Health Organization

WLAN

Wireless local area network

4WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

1.	Introduction
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely theabsence of disease or infirmity (WHO Constitution, 1948)
Telecommunication technologies based on radiofrequency (RF) transmission, suchas radio and television, have been in widespread use for many decades. However,there are numerous new applications for the broadcast and reception of RF waves
and the use of RF devices such as mobile phones is now ubiquitous. The attendant
increased public exposure to RF fields has made its effects on human health a topic
of concern for scientists and the general public.
To respond to these concerns, an important research effort has been mounted
over the past decade and many specific questions about potential health effects of
RF fields have already been investigated by scientists around the world. Nonetheless, several areas still warrant further investigation and the rapid evolution oftechnology in this field is raising new questions.
Social concern has accrued over the years and is influencing risk management at
national and local levels and public acceptance of scientific health risk assessments.
Risk management is built on evidence stemming from both scientific knowledge
and insights from social studies that investigate this concern. Therefore, this document identifies specific research needs in both basic science relevant to health risk
assessment and social science areas pertaining to public concern and risk communication, highlighting their importance in meeting public health needs.

Background
Understanding the health impact of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) falls within the
mandate of the World Health Organization (WHO) – in the area of environmental
health. WHO aims to help Member States achieve safe, sustainable and healthenhancing human environments and protect populations from biological, chemicaland physical hazards. In this context, WHO established the International EMF
Project in 1996 in response to general concern over potential health effects of widespread EMF exposure.

5One objective of the International EMF Project is to encourage research to study
the effects of EMF on humans. This is in line with one of the six core functions ofWHO, to: “shape the research agenda, and stimulate the generation, dissemination and application of valuable knowledge”. WHO’s convening power provides
a unique opportunity to bring together experts to identify knowledge gaps andinformation that are essential for the development of evidence-based public healthguidance.
From inception, the International EMF Project has worked to identify knowledge
gaps where further research could improve health risk assessments and to present
a focused research programme to potential funding agencies. In 1997, it developeda research agenda in order to facilitate and coordinate research worldwide on thepossible adverse health effects of EMFs. In subsequent years, the Research Agenda
for Radiofrequency Fields has undergone periodic review and refinement. The last
major update was undertaken with the input of an ad hoc committee of invited
scientific experts and published in 2006 (WHO, 2006).

ImpactPrevious Research Agendas for Radiofrequency Fields have been instrumental inassisting countries to develop national funding priorities in this area. This publication aims to be similarly useful for many such programmes currently under review.
An update was deemed necessary as a large number of the study topics highlighted
in the 2006 edition have been undertaken and new evidence published. To thisend, an ad hoc committee of scientific experts met in Geneva in February 2010 todevelop this Research Agenda, superseding the 2006 publication.

Guiding principles
WHO encourages the conduct of science that complies with existing standards forbest practices in research, including those related to ethics (CIOMS, 2002; WMA,
2008) and to good laboratory practice (OECD, 2010). Such standards are to be
applied to govern, manage and improve the quality of research.
Quality of research projects – Research must be of high scientific quality if newstudies are to be useful for health risk assessments and standard setting. This requires clearly defined hypotheses; measurable endpoints; sample sizes with sufficient
statistical power to answer the relevant questions; and the use of protocols that areconsistent with good scientific and ethical practice. Quality assurance proceduresshould be included in the protocol. Further discussion regarding the quality of6WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

EMF health effect research has been developed over the past several years (ICNIRP,
2002; Monte Verità Workshop, 2005).
Accessibility of data – There is an increasing demand for more accountability
and transparency in the reporting of research findings and the sharing of researchdata through publicly accessible databases (Pisani & AbouZahr, 2010); and for theuse of evidence in the development of policy. It is expected that the outcomes of research highlighted in this document will be publicly available and will facilitate thedevelopment of consolidated evidence, ultimately providing authoritative healthinformation to support the decisions of policy-makers.

Purpose and audience
The purpose of this Research Agenda is to promote research areas that have relevance to public health, particularly those that can:• reduce scientific uncertainties through health effects research; and• respond to public concern through the development of better risk communication.
The document is organized by two main themes: (i) needs for health effects
research; and (ii) needs for social science research.
A brief summary of ongoing research is provided for each type of health effectresearch study, along with overarching issues relevant to the design and analysis
of future studies. Research topics relating to social sciences are also of great importance because of the need to better understand the general public’s perceptionof risk and to communicate more effectively on the RF-related health issues. Thisis seen to be a particularly important area for further research in order to develop
better risk communication strategies.
This publication is intended for use by researchers and funding agencies. Researchers are encouraged to use it as a guide to studies that have high value forhealth risk assessments and risk communication. Research funders and other key
partners are encouraged to align global resources to address the Research Agenda
in a coordinated fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary duplication of effort
and maximize the effectiveness of large research programmes.

Scope
This Research Agenda addresses research priorities of public health relevance within
the frequency range of 100 kHz to 300 GHz. By far the majority of topics concern the health effects resulting from exposure to the wireless telecommunications

7

frequency range. New RF technologies are of particular interest as many employ
novel RF modulations such as mobile/cordless phones, wireless data networking,asset tracking and identification, wireless transfer of electrical power and body
imaging/scanners.
This document covers exposure of the general public and workers but does notinclude patients under medical care. Topics relating to measurement methodologies
and to electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) issues are also outside the scope of
this document.
This Research Agenda is developed ahead of the major hazard/health risk evaluations that the IARC and WHO are due to carry out over the next two years. It
focuses on identifying short- and long-term research needs that will enable more
complete health risk assessments to be undertaken and communicated more effectively to the public.

8

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

2. Procedures
The process that resulted in the publication of this Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields is described below.
Initially, background documentation was prepared to assist the WHO Technical Consultation participants – the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection’s recent review of RF research (ICNIRP, 2009); a publishedlist of research needs from national agencies (AFSSET, 2009; NRC, 2008) and international organizations (EMF-NET, 2009; SCENHIR, 2009); and a summary ofongoing research were circulated prior to the meeting. The Technical Consultation
meeting was held 9-10 February 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland in order to develop
a list of research recommendations.

Process for setting research priority
The process for developing the priorities is described below.
1. Create a list of research options, by research domain
A survey was undertaken to compile a list of possible research options to assist thetechnical group (see below) to formulate the Research Agenda. This aimed to ensure
inclusiveness by consulting various stakeholders, including individual researchers,with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. Members of the International Advisory
Committee (IAC) of the International EMF Project helped to compile a list ofexperts in their respective countries. In November and December 2009, around
400 experts from this list were requested to complete the survey and provide theirresearch recommendations. The 88 replies received contained over 200 researchneeds that were compiled according to pre-defined areas of research, covering thefollowing research options:• epidemiology• human studies• animal studies• cell studies• mechanisms of interaction9• dosimetry and exposure assessment• social sciences.
A rationale was requested for each research option; many of the topics were
either identical or sufficiently similar to allow them to be combined.
2. Gather technical experts and define the context
A technical group comprising nineteen experts (see Annex 1) was assembled inorder to identify the future RF research priorities. The context of the document was
defined in plenary in terms of the scale (global), target population (general public
and workers) and time period (both short- and long-term). Each research activity
is classified by:• high-priority research needs: studies to fill important gaps in knowledge that areneeded to reduce significantly uncertainty in the current scientific informationand to improve significantly health risk communication• other research needs: studies to better assist understanding of how RF EMF exposure impacts health and public health concern, which would contribute useful
information to health risk assessment and risk communication.
3. Set criteria for priority setting
The criteria for setting priorities were developed in plenary at the beginning of themeeting (see Annex 2):• relevance to public health (scientific concern, public concern, exposure relevance)• potential for filling knowledge gap• scientific suitability (study design and method)• feasibility (in terms of cost, ethical issues, timescale).

Selection of experts
WHO places great value on the technical quality and independence of the participating experts and on the transparency of the selection process. In addition
to scientific and technical excellence, WHO considers the need for experts who
possess diverse and complementary scientific backgrounds and provide a balanced
representation of gender and geographical regions. Previous experience and participation in national or international scientific bodies is also considered desirable.

10WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Experts were invited to participate solely on the basis of their individual scientificexpertise. They do not represent the governments of the countries of which they are
citizens, or the institutions with which they are associated. The experts designatedto participate in the meeting received no remuneration from WHO but WHO bore
exclusive responsibility for travel costs and subsistence allowances.
Before participating in this Technical Consultation, the selected experts wererequired to declare any potential interests associated with the subject (see Annex 3).
Additionally, all participants were asked to disclose any relevant conflicts to otherworkshop participants.

11

3. Health effects research needs
This chapter is ordered according to the weight that each research activity carries
in human health risk assessment: epidemiology; human studies; animal studies; cellular studies; and mechanisms. Whilst epidemiological and human studies directly
address endpoints related to human health, it should be recognized that cellularand animal studies are of value in assessing causality and biological plausibility.
Dosimetry is considered separately but is important for all areas of research.

3.1

Epidemiology

Epidemiological studies are of primary importance in health risk assessment asthey directly address the exposure and disease occurrence in the population. A
number of epidemiological studies of health effects of RF EMF, including some
identified in the 2006 Research Agenda, are currently completed or ongoing. The
most important studies include those listed below.
• A large prospective cohort study of mobile telephone users that includes incidence as well as mortality data.
The COSMOS cohort study includes five countries (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom). It will evaluate changes in the frequency ofspecific symptoms over time (such as headaches and sleep disorders) and also
the risks of cancers, benign tumours, neurological and cerebrovascular diseases.
This international cohort study intends to follow the health of a target figure of
approximately 250 000 European mobile phone users; recruitment is ongoing(February 2010). Almost all case-control studies address brain cancer but thecohort study has the potential to study other brain-related disorders and otherdiseases. Changes in technology and use of mobile phone practices can be captured in the longitudinal design. This study remains a high priority and should
be continued until a reasonable follow-up time (minimally 10-15 years) has beenachieved to evaluate potential long-term risks.
• A large-scale multinational case-control study of brain cancer risk in children in
relation to mobile phone use, following a feasibility study.
Two different studies have been developed in order to address this topic. First,
the CEFALO case-control study was performed in Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom to investigate the risk for brain tumours

12WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

in children aged 7 to 19 years in relation to mobile phone use during the study
period 2004–2008. The results should be published in 2011.
The second study, MOBI-KIDS, is an international multicentre case-control
study on risk factors for brain cancer in young people. Over a study period of 5
years and in 13 countries, nearly 2000 young people between 10 and 24 years
with brain tumours and a similar group without a brain tumour will be invited
to participate. After a preparatory phase, recruitment is expected to start in thelatter half of 2010.
• INTERPHONE
This international case-control study of intracranial tumours and tumours of
the parotid gland started in 2001 and has been conducted in 13 countries. Results of some national and international analyses have been published and thefull collaborative analysis for gliomas and meningiomas was released recently(INTERPHONE Study Group, 2010). The overall analysis showed no increased
risk for glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use over 10 years. There weresome indications of increased risk of glioma: (a) in the subgroup with highest
cumulative call-time in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same sideof the head as their tumour, and (b) for tumours in the temporal lobe. Biases
and errors prevent a causal interpretation. Nevertheless, these findings require
further elaboration and could be evaluated in the recently launched prospective
cohort study. Future analyses of the INTERPHONE data could include evaluation of the tumour risk in relation to estimated field strength from mobile phones
in various parts of the brain.
Validation studies addressing the sources of error in case-control studies – including exposure misclassification, recall bias and selection bias – have been
conducted in conjunction with the INTERPHONE study. The results facilitate
the interpretation of these data as well as results from similar studies. However,the volume of data obtained from these studies and their inherent sources of error suggest that there is no justification for further case-control studies of brain
tumours among adults using self-reported exposure data.
Besides these large-scale studies, smaller case-control studies have been conducted in different countries. Several meta-analyses of brain tumour studies have been
published (e.g. Ahlbom et al., 2009; Hardell et al., 2008; Kan et al., 2008; Lahkola,
Tokola & Auvinen, 2006; Myung et al., 2009). Their coverage of studies has varied,
affecting the overall results, but most have indicated heterogeneity between study
results. This may be attributable to differences in methods and procedures and theinconsistency highlights the uncertainties inherent in case-control studies that relyon self-reported mobile phone use.

13

Epidemiological studies on far field whole-body exposure from mobile phonebase stations and other transmitters have been conducted in the German research
programme (http://www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de/) and are ongoing in the
Swiss research programme (http://www.nfp57.ch/e_index.cfm). These studies focus
on well-being and nonspecific symptoms of ill health, using personal exposure
meters to obtain more reliable estimations of exposure. The results published sofar (BfS, 2008) do not indicate effects from such exposures in the everyday environment, although longitudinal studies are still scarce.
High-priority research needs• Prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with outcomes including
behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer
Rationale: As yet, little research has been conducted in children and adolescents andit is still an open question whether children are more susceptible to RF EMF since thebrain continues to develop during childhood and adolescence. Also, children are starting
to use mobile phones at a younger age. Given the existence of large-scale cohort studies
of mothers and children with follow-up started during or before pregnancy, an RF sourcescomponent could be added at a reasonably low cost. Billing records for mobile phones are
not valid for children, therefore the prospective collection of exposure data is needed. For
neuropsychological studies, one challenge is to distinguish the “training” of motor and neuropsychological skills caused by the use of a mobile phone from the effects of the RF field.
Any future study should try to address this issue. In any case it should be of longitudinal
design, thereby allowing the study of several outcomes and changes in technology andthe use of mobile phones as well as other sources of RF EMF exposure, such as wirelesslaptops.
• Monitoring of brain tumour incidence trends through well-established populationbased cancer registries, if possible combined with population exposure data
Rationale: If there is a substantial risk associated with mobile phone use, it should beobservable in data sources of good quality. Such time trend analyses can be performed
quite quickly and inexpensively. By using modern statistical techniques for analysing population data it should be possible to link changes in exposure prevalence in the population
to the incidence of brain tumours and, if high-quality surveillance data are available, theincidence of other diseases at the population level. Given the shortcomings in the exposure
assessment and participation of previous studies based on individual data, an ecologicalstudy would have benefits that may outweigh its limitations.

14WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Other research needs• Case-control studies of neurological diseases provided that objective exposure dataand confounder data are available and reasonable participation is achieved
Rationale: Neurological endpoints, such as Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease, may
be as biologically plausible as brain cancer and an increased risk would have a major publichealth impact. This study could give an early warning sign that can be elaborated further inthe prospective cohort studies. An analysis of time-trends in neurological disease could also
serve as an early warning sign. However, a feasibility study would be necessary in order todetermine whether a good quality case-control study could be carried out.

3.2

Human studies

A large number of provocation studies have been conducted in adults. In general,
earlier provocation studies indicating effects of RF EMF on cognitive performance
have not been replicated in more recent and higher-quality provocation studies.
Therefore, further research on these endpoints is not a high priority. In contrast, recent provocation studies using Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)
signals have reported effects on brain function, notably on sleep electroencephalography (EEG) and resting EEG (e.g. van Rongen et al., 2009). These studies haveshown moderate consistency to date. The significance of such biological effects on
health per se is unknown, but so far the changes recorded have not been found to
relate to any specific health effects. It is important to clarify the neural processes
underlying possible RF field effects on the brain.
Research with children was identified as a priority in the 2006 Research Agenda:• If ethical approval can be obtained, acute effects on cognition and EEGs should
also be investigated in children exposed to RF fields in the laboratory.
There have been only a few such studies to date.
There have been several recent high-quality provocation studies of people reporting health symptoms that they attribute to RF EMF exposure.1 The results ofthese studies do not show any relation between the symptoms that these individuals
experience and RF EMF exposure. Nevertheless, more research on the causes andtreatment of this condition would be valuable in a broader socio-medical context
and is recommended in the social sciences section below.

1. Sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). A moregeneral term for sensitivity to environmental factors is idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI)(WHO, 2005), i.e. environmental intolerance of unknown cause.

15

High-priority research needs• Further RF EMF provocation studies on children of different ages
Rationale: Current research has focused primarily on adolescents; very little is known
about possible effects in younger children. Longitudinal testing at different ages, for example by studying children already participating in current cohort studies, is recommended.
This would allow consideration of the influence of potentially confounding factors such as
lifestyle.
• Provocation studies to identify neurobiological mechanisms underlying possible effects of RF on brain function, including sleep and resting EEG
Rationale: These studies should include validation of these effects using a range of brain
imaging methods. They should also include studies investigating possible thresholds anddose-response relationships at higher exposure levels such as those encountered during
occupational exposure.
Other research needs
No other research needs were identified.

3.3

Animal studies

Animal studies are used when it is unethical or impractical to perform studies onhumans. They have the advantage that experimental conditions can be controlled,even for chronic exposures.
The 2006 Research Agenda identified the following as high priority.
• Studies investigating effects from exposure of immature animals to RF fields onthe development and maturation of the CNS, and on the development of thehaematopoietic and immune systems using functional, morphological and molecular endpoints. Genotoxic endpoints should also be included. Experimental
protocols should include prenatal and/or early postnatal exposure to RF fields.
Several studies of acute prenatal exposure and one multigenerational study (e.g.
Lee et al., 2009; Ogawa et al., 2009; Sommer et al., 2009) found no harmful
effects of exposure on the fertility and development of the animals. However, a
study of the effects of exposure of young animals (Kumlin et al., 2007) found aslight improvement in one of several measures of adult behavioural performance.
Other studies of the effects of prenatal or early life exposure are being carriedout in France, Germany and Italy.

16WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

The possible carcinogenicity of RF field exposure has been investigated in a large
number of long-term animal studies which included classical rodent bioassays,
genetically predisposed animals and studies of co-carcinogenicity. With only a
few exceptions, these studies have provided no evidence of carcinogenic effects(Juutilainen et al., 2010). The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) are funding a large
scale study in the United States that will use mice and rats; include in utero,neonatal, juvenile and adult exposure; and test both cancer-related and noncancer endpoints. The results of the study are expected to be available in 2014
(NTP, 2009), after which the need for further large, long-term animal cancer
studies should be reassessed.
Since the 2006 Research Agenda, major improvements have been achieved in
the design and characterization of exposure systems, in particular for free-moving
animals. It is of critical importance that future experiments include good dosimetry
and statistical analysis, as well as adequate statistical power, a blind design andproper sham exposure.
High-priority research needs• Effects of early-life and prenatal RF exposure on development and behaviour
Rationale: There is still a paucity of information concerning the effects of prenatal andearly life exposure to RF EMF on subsequent development and behaviour. Such studies are
regarded as important because of the widespread use of mobile phones by children andthe increasing exposure to other RF sources such as wireless local area networks (WLANs)
and the reported effects of RF EMF on the adult EEG. Further study is required which should
include partial (head only) exposure to mobile phones at relatively high specific absorption
rate (SAR) levels.
• Effects of RF exposure on ageing and neurodegenerative diseases
Rationale: Age-related diseases, especially neurodegenerative diseases of the brain suchas Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease, are increasingly prevalent and are therefore
an important public health issue. Mobile phone use typically involves repeated RF EMF
exposure of the brain; a recent study has suggested that this type of exposure could affect
Alzheimer disease in a transgenic mouse model for this condition (Arendash et al., 2010).
There are a few ongoing studies of possible RF EMF effects on neurodegenerative diseases
but further studies are required to investigate this subject more fully.

17

Other research needs• Effects of RF exposure on reproductive organs
Rationale: The available data concerning possible effects of RF EMF from mobile phones
on male fertility are inconsistent and their quality and exposure assessments are weak. In
vivo studies on fertility should consider effects on both males and females and investigate
a range of relevant endpoints including RF EMF effects on the development and function of
the endocrine system.

3.4

Cellular studies

Studies in tissues, living cells and cell-free systems play a supporting role in healthrisk assessments. Cellular model systems are candidates for testing the plausibilityof mechanistic hypotheses and investigating the ability of RF EMF exposures tohave synergistic effects with agents of known biological activity. Cellular studies
have the potential to identify clear responses to RF EMF exposures and therefore
can be used as a screen for possible effects of new RF signals.
The following research needs were identified in the 2006 Research Agenda.
• Independent replication studies of recently reported findings on HSP and DNA
damage using low-level (below 2 W/kg) and/or modulation- or intermittencyspecific signals. The dependence of the effects on SAR levels and frequency
should be included.
A number of studies of RF genotoxicity and effects on gene and protein expression have been carried out – including the recommended replication studies onheat shock protein (HSP) expression and phosphorylation (Hirose et al., 2007;
Lee et al., 2006; Valbonesi et al., 2008; Vanderwaal et al., 2006) and on DNA
damage using the comet assay – with mostly negative results (Sakuma et al.,2006; Sannino et al., 2009; Speit, Schütz & Hoffmann, 2007; Stronati et al.,2006; Valbonesi et al., 2008; Zhijian et al., 2009). Other studies await publication. One group in China is exploring whether the impact of RF EMF on cellular
DNA is of cell type dependence by using gamma-H2AX as a more sensitive andearlier DNA damage biomarker (Zhang et al., 2006).
• Studies of RF effects on cell differentiation, e.g. during haemopoiesis in bonemarrow, and on nerve cell growth using brain slices/cultured neurons.
Few studies of RF EMF effects on cell differentiation have been completed, in
contrast to studies using cultured neurons (Buttiglione et al., 2007; Del Vecchio
et al., 2009; Joubert et al., 2007 & 2008). Several studies of neuronal differentiation following RF EMF exposure are ongoing in Italy and Germany.

18WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

In principle, the use of high-throughput techniques (-omics) should help identify
targets of field exposure when the studies are well-conducted and use rigorous
statistical techniques. (e.g. Blankenburg et al., 2009; McNamee & Chauhan, 2009).
However, many published studies are technically incomplete as they lack sufficientexperimental repetition, replication and confirmation through the use of more
precise quantitative measures. In addition, the magnitude of any changes is usuallysmall and difficult to interpret. The use of these high-throughput techniques in
exploring possible RF EMF effects may become a priority once these issues havebeen addressed.

High-priority research needs
None identified.
Other research needs• Identify optimal sets of experimental tests to detect cellular response after exposure
to RF fields used in new technologies and co-exposures of RF EMF with environmental agents
Rationale: A number of in vitro studies investigating the effects of exposure to mobile
phone frequencies/signals, or co-exposures of RF EMF with chemical or physical agents,
have been published in the last fifteen years. Results obtained have been inconsistent andcontradictory, not least because of the use of a large variety of cell types and study approaches. A set of highly sensitive, well-harmonized cellular and molecular methods should
be developed in order to screen the toxic potential of new types of RF signals used in newtechnologies and of co-exposures of RF EMF and environmental agents – especially thosesuspected to have toxic effects. This research must be multicentred in order to allow the
widest possible acceptance and application of this screening tool.
• Further studies on the influence of genetic background and cell type: possible effects of mobile phone type RF exposure on a variety of cell types using newer, moresensitive methods less susceptible to artefact and/or bias
Rationale: More rigorous quantitative methods should be employed in the evaluation of
positive results that suggest a specific cell type response, e.g. of embryonic cells (Czyzet al., 2004; Franzellitti et al., 2010), raising the possibility that RF impacts specific cell
subpopulations or cell types. These studies should include a variety of cell types such asstem cells and cells with altered genetic backgrounds.

19

3.5

Mechanisms

The accepted health effects of RF field exposure are caused by temperature elevation; non-thermal effects are defined as bioeffects that are not caused by temperature elevation. However, in practice it is often difficult to assess whether temperature elevation has taken place. No alternative mechanism of interaction has been
identified to date (Sheppard, Swicord & Balzano, 2008; Valberg, van Deventer &Repacholi, 2007).
No high-priority or other research needs were identified in the 2006 Research
Agenda.
A recent communication of research findings has reported that non-linear responses indicative of the possible demodulation of a modulated RF signal did notoccur at around 1 GHz carrier frequencies in cells in vitro (Kowalczuk et al., 2009).
High-priority research needs
None identified.
Other research needs
None identified.

3.6

Dosimetry

Dosimetric evaluations are of critical importance in the design and interpretation of experimental studies involving humans, cells and animals. They are also
indispensable for developing and validating exposure assessment methods inepidemiological studies. They provide methods for assessing product safety andcompliance with exposure guidelines and produce comparative exposure data forrisk communication.
Exposure should be assessed using harmonized methodologies. It is necessary toconsider multisource exposure rather than focus solely on exposure arising fromsingle sources. Specific exposure information on different types of RF sources should
be disseminated adequately (e.g. print, web) in order to permit future multisource
exposure assessment.
The 2006 Research Agenda identified the following high-priority need:• Research is needed to document rapidly changing patterns of wireless communication usage and exposure of different parts of the body (especially for children
and foetuses), including multiple exposure from several sources.
20

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Several studies have been published regarding exposures from novel sources andexposure scenarios (Foster, 2007; Martinez-Búrdalo et al., 2009) and others are
ongoing. With multiple sources, a great number of scenarios could potentially beconsidered. Published studies have defined and evaluated certain representative
scenarios and generally these have found combined exposures that are small in
relation to exposure guidelines (Schmid et al., 2007a & 2007b). The situation ofa mobile phone (or another device of similar power) held very close to the body/head is a uniquely high exposure condition and the presence of other sources
near the body does not seem to modify appreciably the localized SAR in thevicinity of such a device. Dosimetric research is also active in designing human,
animal and in vitro exposure systems, including live cell imaging, which can beapplied in the context of emerging technologies.
• Further work on dosimetric models of children of different ages and of pregnant
women. Improvement in dosimetric models of RF energy absorption in animals
and humans combined with appropriate models of human thermoregulatory
responses (e.g. inner ear, head, eye, trunk, embryo and foetus).
Model families of phantoms of various ages and both sexes are now available(Christ et al., 2010a; Lee et al., 2010) and various studies of the SAR distribution
in children of different ages, pregnant women and foetuses have been published(Christ et al., 2010b; Dimbylow & Bolch, 2007; Dimbylow, Nagaoka & Xu,
2009; Uusitupa et al., 2010). Further work, including modelling the SAR distribution at different gestational stages, is being pursued in several countries.
Macro- and micro-thermal studies, including perfusion models, are ongoingin several countries. Small anatomical structures in the body have been considered, including temperature rises at sub-millimetric distance scales (Schmid,Überbacher & Samaras, 2007; Schmid et al., 2007c). No significant temperature
variations have been found at small distance scales with current telecommunications waveforms and the appropriateness of the 10 g mass presently used inaveraging SAR has been shown (Hirata & Fujiwara, 2009). Further work in thisarea would have greater priority if temperature rise was to be considered forinclusion as a restricted quantity in future exposure guidelines.
• Microdosimetry research (i.e. at the cellular levels) that may yield new insights
concerning biologically relevant targets of exposure as an “other” research need.
Little work appears to have been stimulated, possibly because of the continuinglack of a reproducible biological effect at non-thermal levels. If such an effectwere found then microdosimetry research would likely play an important partin understanding the effect.
Research and development is also active in the development of instrumentationand methods for demonstration of compliance for specific products and exposures21

in the workplace. Both these areas of work are being stimulated by regulatory
requirements in various parts of the world.
High-priority research needs• Assess characteristic RF EMF emissions, exposure scenarios and corresponding
exposure levels for new and emerging RF technologies; also for changes in the useof established technologies
Rationale: The work should address the latest developments in areas such as mobile/cordless phones, wireless data networking, asset tracking and identification, wireless transfer ofelectrical power and body imaging/scanners. It should also consider the possible combined
effect of exposure to multiple sources. This will allow exposures from new devices/scenarios
to be compared with those that are more familiar and with exposure guidelines for risk
communication purposes. This information will also be of value for exposure assessment in
epidemiological studies and in the design of biological exposure systems.
• Quantify personal exposures from a range of RF sources and identify the determinants of exposure in the general population
Rationale: The quantification of personal exposure from a range of RF sources will provide
valuable information for risk assessment and communication, and for the development of
future epidemiological research. It is particularly useful for global exposure assessment inview of the upcoming WHO health risk assessment. The study will also provide baseline
data for identification of any changes in the level of exposure and the dominant contributing
factors over time. Subgroup analyses should be carried out to identify any influence fromdemographic aspects of the user as well as the microenvironment in which the exposure
occurs. Exposure metrics should also be considered, especially in combining localized
exposures from body-worn devices and whole-body exposures.
Other research needs• Monitoring of personal exposure of RF workers
Rationale: The exposure patterns of both workers and the general public change continuously, mainly due to the development of new RF technologies. However, workers encounterindustrial sources and exposure situations that lead to much higher energy deposition in the
body. When epidemiological studies on RF workers are performed, it is imperative to monitor
adequately their RF exposure. New instruments are needed to address the lack of adequate
measurement tools for evaluating this type of exposure e.g. portable devices suitable formeasuring different frequencies and waveforms. In addition, a study of the feasibility ofmonitoring the personal exposure of RF workers is required for future epidemiological studies. Such studies would be facilitated by the production of a job exposure matrix (JEM) for
RF workers – in which job designations can be characterized by their exposure.

22WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

4.	Social science research needs
Public concerns about possible adverse health effects of RF fields from wirelesscommunication technologies continue unabated in media and policy forums. These
concerns influence risk management and public acceptance of scientific health risk
assessments. Risk management should build on evidence from both scientific risk
assessments and insights from social studies that investigate these concerns throughwell-formulated research. Risk communication is central to this process. However,by their very nature, the results of scientific research are typically provisional rather
than definitive. The results of any single study will typically provide a limited contribution to definitive determinations of health impacts or effects that the public
and policy-makers often seek. These general issues in the biomedical science-topolicy continuum complicate RF risk communication and highlight the need forcomplementary forms of social science research.
A number of social issues were highlighted in the 2006 Research Agenda. Someof the topics identified have since been addressed and are summarized below.
• Assess impacts of precautionary measures on public concern and the adoptionof voluntary or policies.
The research has mostly explored the question of whether or not awareness ofa precautionary approach has the effect of attenuating or intensifying publicconcern. Several research groups have addressed this question, suggesting that
precautionary approaches tend to intensify rather than attenuate perceptionsof risk (Barnett et al., 2007 & 2008; Schütz, Wiedemann & Clauberg, 2007;
Timotijevic & Barnett, 2006; Wiedemann & Schütz, 2005; Wiedemann et al.,2006). Conceptual scientific considerations of precaution from a social perspective can be found in the work of Hom et al. (2009) and Stilgoe (2007).
• Evaluate the success of programmes for public and stakeholder participation invarious countries.
No such rigorous evaluations of programmes for public and stakeholder participation were identified but some published case studies analyse the results ofpublic participation (or lack thereof) in decision-making processes around basestation siting issues (Drake, 2006; Law & McNeish, 2007). These studies, anda more theoretical paper (Hom, Moles Plaza & Palmén, 2009), have the core
theme that it is unhelpful to characterize public responses as irrational – morerefined analysis of public responses is required. However, an experimental study

23

by Wiedemann & Schütz (2008) suggested that increased information provisionand participation does not necessarily translate into greater acceptance of thesiting process.
• Investigate risk perception of individuals, including studies on the formation ofbeliefs and perceptions about the relationship between RF exposure and health.
The studies published in this area since 2006 can best be characterized as exploring the psychological processes that underline responses to risk, using EMF as
an exemplar hazard. Siegrist, Keller & Cousin (2006) demonstrate the importance of emotion in responses to EMF. Siegrist, Cousin & Frei (2008) identify
biases that help explain why lay assessments of risk differ from professionalrisk assessments. For example, confidence was greater in studies that showeda risk, compared to those showing no risk. Confidence was also greater whenrisk estimates were in line with prior attitudes, compared to those at variancewith prior attitudes. Finally, White et al. (2007) explored the variability of risk
estimates depending on who is identified as the target of the risk (e.g. self, others or children). Most notably they demonstrated that preferences for handset
regulation were predicted by perceptions of risk to others, along with perceived
benefits to self.
In view of the developments in science and society, the following social science
research topics are currently considered important. All the studies described below
are needed and there is no specific priority.
• Investigate the determinants and dynamics of RF EMF-related health concerns andperceived health risks
Rationale: While there is knowledge about several general factors associated with perceived
risk, much less is known about the specific determinants of EMF risk perception – howpeople think about EMF technology and select, process and respond to new information.
Knowledge on these issues would enable policy-makers to take measures to better address
people’s perception of RF EMF health risks. In particular, more study is needed to determine
how individual levels of concern may develop and vary over time. Available research suggests that the proportion of people concerned about health risk from RF EMF technologies
has been stable over recent years but there is little knowledge whether this holds true atthe individual level. This makes it difficult to take adequate measures to address concerns
overall. Hence, longitudinal studies monitoring the factors affecting changing patterns ofrisk perception over time in the context of risk communication and management strategies
would be valuable.

24WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields• Investigate the effectiveness of different formats for communicating scientific evidence regarding health effects of RF EMF exposure and risk information to the public
Rationale: The public often appears to demonstrate considerable misunderstanding of
scientific evidence, especially when there is a lack of conclusive evidence about potential
health hazards, as is the case with RF EMF exposure. It is therefore important to improve theprovision of information in order to enable people to make properly informed and balanced
judgments and decisions about their health and safety. In the process of informing, thepublic’s perspective should explicitly be taken into account. Novel tools for characterizing
and summarizing evidence of the health effects of RF EMF exposure should be developed
explicitly from a communication perspective. Different communication formats should be
evaluated empirically by considering people’s concerns and perceived risk; their ability to
manage health threats; and their trust in scientists, risk communicators and authorities.
• Investigate whether and how people’s perception of RF EMF health risks can affecttheir well-being
Rationale: A number of well-conducted laboratory studies show no relation between thehealth symptoms experienced by some individuals and RF EMF exposure. Yet, perceived
hypersensitivity to RF EMF remains an issue of concern for those affected and for thesocieties in which they live. Further studies should be carried out in order to elucidate
the psychological and psychosocial processes that may influence perceived RF EMF hypersensitivity. Interventions which may alleviate the symptoms should also be exploredfurther. WHO considers this perceived hypersensitivity to be a form of idiopathic environmental intolerance (WHO, 2005) as it resembles other disorders associated with exposure
to low-level environmental factors, therefore research may be broadened to comparative
hypersensitive reactions to other environmental factors.
• Investigate how RF EMF technologies have been handled in a larger social context
Rationale: Several recent studies have described the multidimensional and interrelatedcharacter of public concerns as well as the interdependence of the science and the social
aspects of mobile communications technology (e.g. Bickerstaff, Simmons & Pidgeon 2007;
Law & McNeish, 2007; Moore & Stilgoe 2009; Wiedemann & Schütz, 2008). This interdependence can be explored by looking at how different stakeholders have addressed RF
technologies. Such studies could include the history and context of specific RF technologies,
regulations, safety measures and media reports or country comparisons of how science andpolicy relations in this field have developed.

25

5.	Summary
RF Research Agenda recommendations
Health effects researchPriority
High
High
Other

High
High

High
High
Other
Other
Other

High

High
Other

Epidemiology
Prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with outcomes including
behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer
Monitoring of brain tumour incidence trends through well-established populationbased cancer registries, if possible combined with population exposure data
Case-control studies of neurological diseases provided that objective exposure
data and confounder data are available and reasonable participation is achieved
Human studies
Further RF EMF provocation studies on children of different ages
Provocation studies to identify neurobiological mechanisms underlying possible
effects of RF on brain function, including sleep and resting EEG
Animal studies
Effects of early-life and prenatal RF exposure on development and behaviour
Effects of RF exposure on ageing and neurodegenerative diseases
Effects of RF exposure on reproductive organs
Cellular studies
Identify optimal sets of experimental tests to detect cellular response after exposure
to new RF technologies and co-exposures of RF EMF with environmental agents
Further studies on the influence of genetic background and cell type: possible
effects of mobile phone type RF exposure on a variety of cell types using newer,
more sensitive methods less susceptible to artefact and/or bias
Mechanisms
None
Dosimetry
Assess characteristic RF EMF emissions, exposure scenarios and corresponding
exposure levels for new and emerging RF technologies; also for changes in the useof established technologies
Quantify personal exposures from a range of RF sources and identify the determinants of exposure in the general population
Monitoring of personal exposure of RF workers

26WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

RF Research Agenda recommendations
Social science research
NA
NA

NA
NA

Investigate the determinants and dynamics of RF EMF-related health concern andperceived health risks
Investigate the effectiveness of different formats for communicating scientificevidence regarding health effects of RF EMF exposure and risk information to the
publicInvestigate whether and how people’s perception of RF EMF health risks can affecttheir well-being
Investigate how RF EMF technologies have been handled in a larger social context

27

References
AFSSET - Agence Française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail(2009). Opinion of the French Agency for Environmental and Occupational
Health Safety. Concerning the update of the expert appraisal relating to radiofrequencies. Maisons-Alfort France(http://www.afsset.fr/upload/bibliotheq
ue/838965561866129504705299558421/09_10_ED_Radiofrequences_Avis_
EV.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010).
Ahlbom A et al. (2009). ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Epidemiologic evidence
on mobile phones and tumour risk: a review. Epidemiology, 20(5):639–652.
Arendash GW et al. (2010). Electromagnetic field treatment protects against and reverses cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease mice. Journal of Alzheimer’s
Disease, 19(1):191–210.
Barnett J et al. (2007). Public responses to precautionary information from the
Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones.
Health Policy, 82(2):240–250.
Barnett J et al. (2008). Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses. Journal of Risk Research, 11(4):525–540.
BfS - Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2008). Ergebnisse des Deutschen Mobilfunk
Forschungsprogramms/German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) Bewertung der gesundheitlichen risiken des mobilfunks/healthrisk assessment of mobile communications (Stand 15.05.2008). Salzgitter(http://www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de/abschlussphase/DMF_AB.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010).
Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon N (2007). Constructing responsibilities forrisk: negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A,
40(6):1312–1330.
Blankenburg M et al. (2009). High-throughput omics technologies: potential tools
for the investigation of influences of EMF on biological systems. Current Genomics, 10(2):86–92.
Buttiglione M et al. (2007). Radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz) induces Egr-1
gene expression and affects cell-cycle control in human neuroblastoma cells.
Journal of Cellular Physiology, 213(3):759–767.

28

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields
References

Christ A et al. (2010a). The virtual family – development of surface-based anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simulations. Physics
in Medicine and Biology, 55(2):N23–N38.
Christ A et al. (2010b). Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users.
Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55(7):1767–1783.
CIOMS – Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects.
Geneva (http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_
blurb.htm, accessed 20 May 2010).
Czyz J et al. (2004). High frequency electromagnetic fields (GSM signals) affectgene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells.
Bioelectromagnetics, 25(4):296–307.
Del Vecchio G et al. (2009). Effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on in vitro models of neurodegenerative disease. Bioelectromagnetics,
30(7):564–572.
Dimbylow P, Bolch WE (2007). Whole-body-averaged SAR from 50 MHz to 4
GHz in the University of Florida child voxel phantoms. Physics in Medicine
and Biology, 52(22):6639–6649.
Dimbylow PJ, Nagaoka T, Xu XG (2009). A comparison of foetal SAR in three setsof pregnant female models. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 54(9):2755–2767.
Drake F (2006). Mobile phone masts: protesting the scientific evidence. Public
Understanding of Science, 15(4):387–410.
EMF-NET (2009). Report on health effects of RF with recommendations for
non-ionizing radiation protection and research needs. Lyon (http://web.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/emf-net/doc/reports/Report%20on%20health%20effects%20
of%20RF.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010).
Foster KR (2007). Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs utilizing Wi-Fi
technology. Health Physics, 92(3):280–289.
Franzellitti S et al. (2010). Transient DNA damage induced by high-frequency
electromagnetic fields (GSM 1.8 GHz) in the human trophoblast HTR-8/
SVneo cell line evaluated with the alkaline comet assay. Mutation Research,
683(1-2):35–42.
Hardell L et al. (2008). Meta-analysis of long-term mobile phone use and the association with brain tumours. International Journal of Oncology, 32(5):1097–1103.
Hirata A, Fujiwara O (2009). The correlation between mass-averaged SAR andtemperature elevation in the human head model exposed to RF near-fields
from 1 to 6 GHz. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 54(23):7227–7238.

29

Hirose H et al. (2007). Mobile phone base station-emitted radiation does not induce phosphorylation of Hsp27. Bioelectromagnetics, 28(2):99–108.
Hom AG et al. (2009). From precautionary inadequacy to participatory risk management. Futures, 41(5):260–268.
Hom AG, Moles Plaza R, Palmén R (2009). The framing of risk and implications
for policy and governance: the case of EMF. Public Understanding of Science
Online, (doi:10.1177/0963662509336712).
ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2002).
General approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation. Health Physics, 82(4):540–548.
ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (2009).
Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields, biological effects and healthconsequences (100 kHz-300 GHz). Oberschleissheim (Publication ICNIRP
16/2009), (http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf, accessed 20 May
2010).
INTERPHONE Study Group (2010). Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile
telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2010 39: 675-694 (doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079).
Joubert V et al. (2007). No apoptosis is induced in rat cortical neurons exposed to
GSM phone fields. Bioelectromagnetics, 28(2):115–121.
Joubert V et al (2008). Apoptosis is induced by radiofrequency fields through thecaspase-independent mitochondrial pathway in cortical neurons. Radiation
Research, 169(1):38–45.
Juutilainen J et al. (2010). Experimental studies on carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation in animals. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science andTechnology, in press.
Kan P et al. (2008). Cellular phone use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis. Journalof Neuro-Oncology, 86(1):71–78.
Kowalczuk C et al. (2010). Absence of nonlinear responses in cells and tissues
exposed to RF energy at mobile phone frequencies using a doubly resonantcavity. Bioelectromagnetics, In Press. (doi:10.1002/bem.20597)
Kumlin T et al. (2007). Mobile phone radiation and the developing brain: behavioral and morphological effects in juvenile rats. Radiation Research,
168(4):471–479.

30

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields
References

Lahkola A, Tokola K, Auvinen A (2006). Meta-analysis of mobile phone use andintracranial tumors. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health,32(3):171–177.
Law A, McNeish W (2007). Contesting the new irrational actor model: a case studyof mobile phone mast protest. Sociology, 41(3):439–456.
Lee C et al. (2010). The UF family of reference hybrid phantoms for computationalradiation dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55(2):339–363.
Lee HJ et al. (2009). Lack of teratogenicity after combined exposure of pregnant
mice to CDMA and WCDMA radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Radiation Research, 172(5):648–652.
Lee JS et al. (2006). Radiofrequency radiation does not induce stress response
in human T-lymphocytes and rat primary astrocytes. Bioelectromagnetics,
27(7):578–588.
Martinez-Búrdalo M et al. (2009). FDTD assessment of human exposure to electromagnetic fields from WiFi and bluetooth devices in some operating situations.
Bioelectromagnetics, 30(2):142–151.
McNamee JP, Chauhan V (2009). Radiofrequency radiation and gene/protein expression: a review. Radiation Research, 172(3):265–287.
Monte Verità Workshop (2005). EMF Health Risk Research. Lessons learned andrecommendations for the future. Monte Verità, Switzerland, 20–24 November
2005 (http://www.itis.ethz.ch/mv/, accessed 20 May 2010).
Moore A, Stilgoe J (2009). Experts and anecdotes: the role of ‘‘anecdotal evidence’’in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
34:654–677.
Myung SK et al. (2009). Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(33):5565–5572.
NRC – National Research Council of the National Academies (2008). Committee
on Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse
Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices. Identification of researchneeds relating to potential biological or adverse health effects of wireless communications. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, (http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/12036.html, accessed 20 May 2010).
NTP – National Toxicology Program (2009). Cell phone radiofrequency radiation
studies. Research Triangle Park, NC (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/
cell-phone-fact-sheet.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010).

31

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010).
Good laboratory practice. Paris (http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,
en_2649_34381_1_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed 20 May 2010).
Ogawa K et al. (2009). Effects of gestational exposure to 1.95-GHz W-CDMAsignals for IMT-2000 cellular phones: lack of embryotoxicity and teratogenicity in rats. Bioelectromagnetics, 30(3):205–212.
Pisani E, AbouZahr C (2010). Sharing health data: good intentions are not enough.
Bulletin World Health Organization, 88: 462–466.
Sakuma N et al. (2006). DNA strand breaks are not induced in human cells exposed
to 2.1425 GHz band CW and W-CDMA modulated radiofrequency fields allocated to mobile radio base stations. Bioelectromagnetics, 27(1):51–57.
Sannino A et al. (2009). Human fibroblasts and 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation: evaluation of DNA damage after exposure and co-exposure to 3-chloro4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5h)-furanone (MX). Radiation Research,
171(6):743–751.
SCENHIR – Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(2009). Health effects of exposure to EMF. Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf, accessed 4
June 2010).
Schmid G, Überbacher R, Samaras T (2007). Radio frequency-induced temperatureelevations in the human head considering small anatomical structures. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 124(1):15–20.
Schmid G et al. (2007a). Exposure of the general public due to wireless LAN applications in public places. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 124(1):48–52.
Schmid G et al. (2007b). Exposure caused by wireless technologies used for shortrange indoor communication in homes and offices. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 124(1):58–62.
Schmid G et al. (2007c). High-resolution numerical model of the middle and innerear for a detailed analysis of radio frequency absorption. Physics in Medicine
and Biology, 52(7):1771–1781.
Schütz H, Wiedemann P, Clauberg M (2007). The public perception of precaution.
EMBO reports, 8(7):612–613.
Sheppard AR, Swicord ML, Balzano Q (2008). Quantitative evaluations of mechanisms of radiofrequency interactions with biological molecules and processes.
Health Physics, 95(4):365–396.
Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Frei M (2008). Biased confidence in risk assessment studies.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 14(6):1226–1234.

32

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields
References

Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin ME (2006). Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power
and mobile phone base stations: Support for the affect heuristic. Risk Analysis,
26(4):1021-1029.
Sommer AM et al. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (UMTS)
on reproduction and development of mice: a multi-generation study. Radiation
Research, 171(1):89–95.
Speit G, Schütz P, Hoffmann H (2007). Genotoxic effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in cultured mammalian cells are notindependently reproducible. Mutation Research, 626(1–2):42–47.
Stilgoe J (2007). The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice onmobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1):45–61.
Stronati L et al. (2006). 935 MHz cellular phone radiation. An in vitro study ofgenotoxicity in human lymphocytes. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 82(5):339–346.
Timotijevic L, Barnett J (2006). Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice.
Health, Risk and Society, 8(2):143–164.
Valberg PA, van Deventer TE, Repacholi M (2007). Workgroup report: base stations and wireless networks – radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(3):416–424.
Valbonesi P et al. (2008). Evaluation of HSP70 expression and DNA damage in cellsof a human trophoblast cell line exposed to 1.8 GHz amplitude-modulated
radiofrequency fields. Radiation Research, 169(3), 270–279.
Vanderwaal RP et al. (2006). HSP27 phosphorylation increases after 45 degrees C
or 41degrees C heat shocks but not after non-thermal TDMA or GSM exposures. International Journal of Hyperthermia, 22(6):507–519.
van Rongen E et al. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on thehuman nervous system. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, PartB, 12(8):572–597.
White MP et al. (2007). Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative
optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone
technology. Risk Analysis, 27(3):741–753.
WHO – World Health Organization (2005). Electromagnetic fields and publichealth. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Geneva (Fact sheet No. 296) (http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html, accessed 25 May
2010).

33

WHO – World Health Organization (2006). 2006 WHO Research Agenda forRadio Frequency Fields. Geneva (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf, accessed 25 May 2010).
Wiedemann P, Schütz H (2005). The precautionary principle and risk perception:
experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives,
113(4):402–405.
Wiedemann P, Schütz H (2008). Informing the public about information and participation strategies in the siting of mobile communication base stations: anexperimental study. Health, Risk & Society, 10(6):517–534.
Wiedemann P et al. (2006). The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk
Research, 9(4):361–372.
WMA – World Medical Association (2008). WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Ferney-Voltaire(http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html, accessed 25
May 2010).
Zhang D et al. (2006). Effects of GSM 1800 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on DNA damage in Chinese hamster lung cells. Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3):149–152.
Zhijian C et al. (2009). Influence of 1.8-GHz (GSM) radiofrequency radiation(RFR) on DNA damage and repair induced by X-rays in human leukocytes invitro. Mutation Research, 677(1–2):100–104.

34

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Annex 1.
Participants in TechnicalConsultation
Dr Anssi AUVINEN
Professor of Epidemiology
Tampere School of Public Health
University of Tampere
33014 Tampere
FINLAND
Dr Rodney CROFT
Professor of Health Psychology
School of Psychology
University of Wollongong
Northfields Avenue, Wollongong
NSW 2522
AUSTRALIADr Patrick HAGGARD
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience& Dept. Psychology
University College London
Alexandra House
17 Queen Square
London, WC1N 3AR
UNITED KINGDOMDr Heikki HÄMÄLÄINEN
Professor
Department of Psychology
Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience
University of Turku
20014 Turku
FINLAND
Dr Niels KUSTER
Director IT’IS Foundation
Zeughausstrasse 438004 Zurich
SWITZERLANDDr Isabelle LAGROYE
Laboratoire de bioélectromagnétisme
EPHE
Laboratoire IMS-UMR 5218,
Site ENSCBP
16 avenue Pey Berland
33607 Pessac cedex
FRANCEDr Alexander LERCHL
Professor of Biology
School of Engineering and Science
Jacobs University Bremen 28759
BremenGERMANY
Dr Simon MANN
Head of Physical Dosimetry
Health Protection Agency
Radiation Protection Division
Chilton, Didcot
Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ
UNITED KINGDOMDr Carmela MARINO
Ente per le Nuove tecnologie,
l’Energia e l’Ambiente (ENEA)
Unit of Toxicology and Biomedical
Sciences
C.R. Casaccia
Via Anguillarese 301
00060 RomeITALY
Dr Georg NEUBAUER
Austrian Institute of Technology
GmbH
Safety and Security Department
2444 Seibersdorf
AUSTRIA35

Dr Jørn OLSEN
Professor and Chair
Department of Epidemiology
School of Public Health, UCLA
650 Charles E. Young Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772
UNITED STATESDr Eric VAN RONGEN
Scientific Secretary
Health Council of the Netherlands
PO Box 16052
2500 BB The Hague
NETHERLANDSDr Martin RÖÖSLI
Head of the Unit for Environmental
Epidemiology& Health Risk Assessment
Swiss Tropical and Public HealthInstitute
University of Basel
4002 BaselSWITZERLAND
Dr Richard SAUNDERS
Health Protection Agency
Radiation Protection Division
Chilton, Didcot
Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ
UNITED KINGDOMMr Holger SCHÜTZ
Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine
Research Centre Jülich
52425 JülichGERMANY
Dr Linda SONERYD
Research Director and Deputy
Director
Stockholm Centre for Organizational
Research (SCORE)106 91 Stockholm
SWEDENDr Daniëlle TIMMERMANS
Professor of Risk Communication
and Patient Decision Making
Department of Public and Occupational Health
EMGO Institute for Health and Care
Research
VU University Medical Center
Van der Boechorststraat 71081 BT Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS
Dr Zhengping XU
Professor and director
Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory
Zhejiang University School of Medicine
388 Yuhangtang Road
Hangzhou, 310058
P. R. CHINADr Gunde ZIEGELBERGERThe Federal Office for Radiation
Protection
Department of Radiation Protectionand Health
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
85764 Neuherberg/OberschleißheimGERMANY

WHO Secretariat
Dr Emilie VAN DEVENTER
Team Leader, Radiation Programme
Unit of Interventions for Healthy
Environments (IHE)
Department of Public Health andEnvironment (PHE)
Dr Maria NEIRA
Director
Department of Public Health andEnvironment (PHE)
Mr Robert TERRY
Project Manager
Department of Research Policy andCooperation (RPC)36

WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields

Annex 2.
Agenda of the TechnicalConsultation
WHO Headquarters - Geneva, Switzerland - Room M 505 9-10 February 2010
WHO Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (2010) AGENDA
Tuesday 9 February
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:30
11:00

12:30
13:30

15:30
16:00
17:30

Chair: E. van Deventer

Welcome and introductions
Purpose of the meeting and expected outcome
Checklist for health research priority setting
Coffee break
Discussion
Criteria for selecting research priorities
Review of draft document
Lunch
Breakout groups
Review of draft text regarding ongoing research
Ranking research priorities
Coffee break
Breakout groups (cont'd)
Adjourn

Wednesday 10 February
9:00
10:30
11:00
12:30
13:30

16:00

M. Neira, Director PHE
E. van Deventer
R. Terry

Chair: R. Saunders

Plenary discussion
Reporting from breakout groups
Coffee break
Plenary discussion (cont’d)Lunch
Plenary discussion (cont’d)
Steps forward
Conclusions, next steps
Close of meeting37Annex 3.
Declarations of interests
The Technical Consultation participants completed a WHO form for declarationof interests prior to the meeting. At the start of the meeting, all participants wereasked to confirm their interests and to provide any additional information relevantto the subject matter of the meeting.
The following participant declared current or recent (<3 year) financial interests
related to commercial organizations as listed below:
Kuster:		

Near-Field Technology AG, SPEAG AG, ZMT AG,
Imricor Inc. USA, MaxWave AG, Apple		

Several participants declared academic interest in the subject matter of the meeting. These were not regarded as conflicts of interest since they formed the basis of
the expertise of the panel.
The following participants declared no conflict of interests in the subject matterof the meeting:
Haggard, Marino, Olsen, Röösli, Soneryd, Timmermans
Given their roles as experts or advisers to professional or government bodies,
several participants noted that they had made public statements regarding the
subject matter of the meeting. These were not considered to be conflicts for the
purposes of the meeting.
On the basis of their declared interests in the subject of the meeting, and withregard to the nature and extent of financial and/or academic interests, the following
panel participant(s) took no part in the final session of the meeting, during which
the research priorities were confirmed, or in the finalization of the recommendations subsequent to the panel meeting:KusterNo experts were asked not to participate in the meeting on the basis of declaredpersonal and commercial interests.

38WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields.
1.Radio waves - adverse effects. 2.Electromagnetic fields - adverse effects. 3.Environmental
exposure - standards. 4.Risk assessement. 5.Risk management. 6.Research. 7.Radiation
effects. I.World Health Organization.
ISBN 978 92 4 159994 8	

(NLM classification: QT 34)© World Health Organization 2010
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from
WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland(tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: bookorders@who.int). Requests for
permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or fornoncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address(fax: +41 22 791 4806; e-mail: permissions@who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent
approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply
that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference toothers of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the namesof proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the
information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being
distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility forthe interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World
Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
Printed in Switzerland

WHO Research Agenda
for Radiofrequency Fields

ISBN 978 92 4 159994 8