Irish Examiner 2nd December 2025 – by Cianan Brennan

Tue, 02 Dec, 2025 – 01:00

Cianan Brennan

On Monday, a near five-year legal odyssey came to an end at the High Court with Kilkenny couple Peter and Doreen Thomson being vindicated in full in their battle over a decision to allow a mobile phone mast to be installed next to their home.

In sticking to their guns, the couple did the State and their fellow citizens an enormous service — one which will likely not be fully appreciated by the public at large.

They have also shown that, in the Government’s current attempts to stifle access to review of questionable decisions made by State actors, we are heading down a very poorly-lit path.

The Thomsons had argued that the initial decision taken by former deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála Paul Hyde — who subsequently received a criminal conviction for undeclared conflicts of interest during his time at the planning authority — had been the subject of bias, given the alleged statistical improbability of the sheer number of times he had overruled his own planning inspectors when granting permission for telecommunications masts.

Those allegations were never tested in court. Instead, An Coimisiún Pleanála — a name change that resulted directly from the scandals which engulfed it in its previous guise — argued that the Thomsons had taken their challenge outside the eight-week statute of limitations for raising an objection, an argument the High Court initially agreed with.

However,  given the seriousness of what they were alleging relating to transparency of public decisions, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court both said the public interest would be better served by having the Thomsons case argued in court 

While the Coimisiún said repeatedly in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that it would robustly defend its position, this has not come to pass. Instead, it has dropped its defence entirely.

Accusations of bias

In a statement delivered by its legal counsel, Philip Lee, the Coimisiún insisted accusations of bias are unfounded. However, at the same time, it has elected not to defend them.

“The concession of the proceedings means that we will not get to hear any explanation for what was an extraordinary pattern of decision-making by the board in relation to telecoms masts,” Eoin Brady, the Thomsons solicitor, said.

Mr Brady, who has taken countless cases relating to dubious mast decisions, called for a 2023-commissioned report by senior counsel on governance issues at the then An Bord Pleanála to be published.

“It is truly amazing that the relevant authorities are still refusing public access to a report completed at considerable expense to the taxpayer in relation to allegations of systemic wrongdoing at one of the State’s most important institutions,” he said.

But back to the Thomsons. There is tremendous vindication for them here, and doubtless enormous relief also for them personally. The bravery of what they did should not be underestimated. They admitted in the High Court initially that they had not brought the case at first for fear of the enormous financial implications should they lose.

The Thomsons had argued that the initial decision taken by former deputy chair of An Bord Pleanála Paul Hyde had been the subject of bias. File Picture: Dan Linehan

Peter Thomson eventually decided to pursue the case anyway after reporting by the Irish Examiner disclosed Mr Hyde’s granting permission for mobile phone masts, regardless of whether his own inspectors believed the construction to be appropriate or not.

It has taken enormous courage and fortitude to do what the Thomsons have done. The case is not a sexy one, but they have brought the State to heel and exposed a deeply dubious decision for what it was.

The whole saga is a shining example of what a judicial review process can do when approached in good faith and with a genuine case. A public good has been achieved. Will Ireland learn from this lesson? It seems not.

Judicial review

At present, the Department of Housing is fast-tracking legislation to make access to judicial review much more difficult. In future, if you wish to challenge a questionable planning decision which affects you directly, you’ll have to be prepared to pay through the nose for it to the tune of well over €100,000. 

No longer will the State be covering the costs in full of successful objectors, all in the name of “getting things done”.

Those changes have resulted from the Government’s mismanagement of the country’s housing crisis, and the optics of needing to be seen to be doing something about it.

Similar deregulatory thinking led to doozies like the 110% mortgage, along with Ireland’s banks being actively encouraged to throw credit around like confetti in the buildup to a financial crash that brought Ireland to its knees in 2008. Must we always be doomed to repeat our mistakes? Or will sanity ever prevail?

Eoin Brady says: “The Thomson case clearly illustrates the critical importance of the availability of judicial review. It shows the importance of preserving access to the courts for ordinary people when faced with decision-making by State institutions which break the law.

“Ultimately judicial review is about preserving the rule of law, and ensuring accountability within our institutions, which is key to ensuring cohesion in society. In today’s world, that could not be more important.”

He is not wrong.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE : https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

& https://web.archive.org/web/20251202025348/https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

Radio Interview with Peter and Doreen Thomson: https://kclr96fm.com/a-huge-relief-say-kilkenny-couple-as-more-than-four-year-battle-in-high-court-over-plans-for-mobile-phone-mast-comes-to-an-end/

Irish Examiner 1st December 2025 – Cianan Brennan

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41752548.html

Mon, 01 Dec, 2025 – 20:00

Cianan Brennan

Planning body An Coimisiún Pleanála has dropped its defence of a legal case taken against the granting of permission to build a telecommunications mast in Co Kilkenny after a four-year battle.

The planning authority told Peter Thomson, the Kilkenny man who took the case against the initial June 2021 decision, it would no longer be opposing the quashing of the original decision made by its former deputy chair Paul Hyde for several reasons — but denied it now accepted that bias in its decision-making had been a factor.

Peter Thomson and his wife Doreen had initially objected to the construction of the telecommunications mast adjacent to their home in Kells, alleging the decision to grant permission had been affected by “bias”.

That objection was initially dismissed by the High Court as being made outside the time limit of eight weeks for taking a legal action, only for that decision to be overturned by the Court of Appeal.

An Bord Pleanála, as the commission was formerly known, then appealed the decision to allow the Thomsons’ judicial review to the Supreme Court, only to lose that appeal in a landmark decision last July.

The commission had insisted throughout the various legal hearings over Mr Hyde’s decision that it would be robustly defending the case even it were to lose the Supreme Court appeal — however, no defence will now be mounted.

In a letter from its solicitors Philip Lee, the commission told Mr Thomson that in the aftermath of the adverse Supreme Court ruling it had “considered its position” with regard to a number of factors, including the four-year time gap since the case was first taken, changes in personnel at the body, and “certain conclusions” of an unpublished report into goings-on at the Commission compiled by senior counsel Lorna Lynch.

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question. Picture: Dan Linehan

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question. Picture: Dan Linehan

“In preparing opposition papers in these remitted proceedings and on further consideration of the matter, the commission has determined that it will no longer oppose an order of Certiorari (rendering the initial decision invalid) of its decision dated 17 June, 2021,” the commission said.

However, it added it “continues to be the position” of the commission that the statistical evidence put forward by the Thomsons regarding Mr Hyde’s decision-making “did not demonstrate bias — objective or subjective”.

The Thomsons had suggested in their original High Court submissions that a pattern of decision-making by Mr Hyde in the telecommunications mast cases he had presided over, originally reported by the Irish Examiner, had amounted to bias given the statistical improbability of the decisions in question.

The commission said Ms Lynch’s assertion in a press statement concerning her unpublished report — that “a change in policy emphasis” encouraging mobile mast infrastructure had been seen at An Bord Pleanála — could now be confirmed as relating to two Government circulars dating from 2018 which underlined that mobile infrastructure was to be encouraged by local authorities.

While insisting Mr Hyde’s decision did not constitute bias, the commission admitted “there was error of law” in that the board members had “misinterpreted the circulars” in question.

The case was briefly heard at the High Court on Monday, where the commission’s decision to drop the case was revealed. 

However, Eir — the original applicants for the mast itself — asked that the application be remitted to the board once more, meaning the entire case will be considered on its merits for a second time once the original decision is quashed.

In May 2022, the Irish Examiner first reported that Mr Hyde had voted to override his own planning inspectors in the vast majority of applications for telecommunications masts over a near-two-year period.

He had, in fact voted, voted to overturn refusal recommendations by planning inspectors in 31 of 36 mast applications in the 20 months from September of 2020.

By contrast, other members of the then nine-strong board voted to overturn the recommendation of planning inspectors on three out of nine occasions over the same timeframe.

While it was not unusual for board members to overrule its own inspectors, informed sources at that time indicated such overrulings occured in roughly 10% of cases, making Mr Hyde’s rate of overturning his own inspectors roughly eight times the average.

It had also been argued that the sheer rate at which Mr Hyde presided over telecommunications mast decisions — he was involved in roughly 75% of the 100 decisions made — defied logic, given cases considered by the board were supposed to have been randomly allocated.

The commission had not replied to a request for comment at the time of writing.

The Department of Housing — the commission’s parent body — said it would not comment on a specific legal case, saying any decision “is a matter for the commission, who are independent in undertaking prescribed functions set out in the planning and development acts”.

“The outcome of these long-running proceedings represents a vindication for Peter and Doreen Thomson, who persevered in their efforts over the past number of years to shine a light on the pre-determination of cases by senior members of what was An Bord Pleanála,” Eoin Brady, partner at FP Logue solicitors, who handled the Thomsons case, said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.msn.com/en-ie/politics/government/planning-board-drops-defence-of-case-taken-against-granting-of-permission-to-build-telecommunications-mast/ar-AA1RvzBh

ALSO: Kilkenny couple did the public an enormous service in bringing State to heel over phone mast decision https://web.archive.org/web/20251202025348/https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41752632.html

Source Article: EMR Australia

Can everyday levels of electromagnetic fields make us feel sick?

A new study from France suggests that they can.

Laurène Sonzogni and team were interested in determining whether exposure could cause symptoms of ill health, otherwise known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Whereas many EHS studies to date have looked at how exposure affects people’s behaviour, Sonogni’s team was more interested in how it affects cells. Cells, unlike people, are unaffected by beliefs.

The study investigated 26 volunteers with self-diagnosed EHS who answered questions and provided skin samples to the researchers.

With the information from the questionnaire, the researchers were able to determine just how severe the volunteers’ symptoms were. The symptoms they assessed were: ‘eye pathologies, pain in muscles and cartilages, cardiac system pathologies, digestive system pathologies, fatigue and sleep disorders, mood instability, and nervousness, slowing down of intellectual activity, headaches, and tinnitus, skin pathologies, genito-urinary pathologies.’

The results showed that the severity of the symptoms ranged from zero (no reaction) to five (extreme pain and discomfort). According to the authors, ‘The highest self-assessed intensities of discomfort were obtained for cerebral features like headaches, tinnitus, slowing down of intellectual activity, fatigue, and sleep disorders.’

Interestingly, the researchers found that the volunteers could be broadly divided into two separate groups, each of which reacted differently to exposure.

Group 1 (LBHR)

• Volunteers in this group experienced low levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures below UHF, but higher levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures to Ultra High Frequencies (UHF; 300 MHz to 3 GHz).
• This group ’was particularly associated with impairment of cardiac and digestive systems, mood instability, nervousness, headaches, tinnitus and skin reactions.’
• Fibroblast skin cells had ‘limited amounts of spontaneous DSB [double-strand DNA breaks] and MN [micronuclei – signs of chromosome instability], like cells from patients showing moderate radiosensitivity.’
• ‘The LBHR phenotype was associated with an early formation of radiation-induced MRE11 foci and high cancer risk’.

Group 2 (HBLR)

• Volunteers in this group experienced high levels of symptoms and discomfort from exposures below UHF but lower symptoms and discomfort from exposure to UHF.
• This group ‘was particularly associated with fatigue, sleep disorders, and the decrease of intellectual capacity’.
• Fibroblast skin cells showed ‘very high amounts of spontaneous DSB and MN, like those of the most hyper-radiosensitive cell lines’.
• ‘[T]he HBLR phenotype was associated with both spontaneous formation of perinuclear pATM crowns and late formation of radiation-induced MRE11, common features of high risk of accelerated aging.’

From their observations, the authors concluded that ‘EHS may be related to the management of SSB and/or DSB [single- and/or double-strand DNA breaks].’

READ FULL STUDY:

Skin Fibroblasts from Individuals Self-Diagnosed as Electrosensitive Reveal Two Distinct Subsets with Delayed Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in Common. Sonzogni L, Al-Choboq J, Combemale P, Massardier-Pilonchéry A, Bouchet A, May P, Doré JF, Debouzy JC, Bourguignon M, Dréan YL, Foray N. Int J Mol Sci. 2025 May 16;26(10):4792.

doi: 10.3390/ijms26104792. PMID: 40429933; PMCID: PMC12112057.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/10/4792

J. C. Lin, “Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer and Use of Smart Phones [Health Matters],” in IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 14-16, Jan. 2026,

doi: 10.1109/MMM.2025.3613612.

Date of Publication: 05 January 2026

Author: Professor James C Lin is an ex member of ICNIRP

PDF https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=11329092

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned 12 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The health outcomes selected for those reviews (cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects) were based on a WHO-conducted international survey. The SR of the studies of cancer in laboratory animal studies was the only one that did not include a MA, because those authors considered it inappropriate due to methodological differences among the available studies, including differences in exposure characteristics (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization), experimental parameters (hours/day of exposure, duration of exposure, exposure systems), and different biological models. MAs in all the other SRs suffered from relatively few primary studies available for each MA (sometimes due to excessive subgrouping), exclusion of relevant studies, weaknesses in many of the included primary studies, lack of a framework for analyzing complex processes such as those involved in cognitive functions, and/or high between-study heterogeneity. Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. However, the animal cancer SR, which was rated as “high certainty of evidence” for heart schwannomas and “moderate certainty of evidence” for brain gliomas, provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk. The multiple and significant dose-related adverse effects found in the SRs on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcome should also serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human reproductive risks. The report of harmful effects (e.g., cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) at doses below the adverse health effect threshold claimed by ICNIRP demonstrates that current exposure limits to RF-EMF, which were established by applying arbitrary uncertainty factors to their putative adverse threshold dose, lack scientific credibility….

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

See Also

Microwave News article : ICBE-EMF: Health Reviews Suffer from Faulty Analysis & ICNIRP Bias

Source Website : ICBE International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Wireless technologies are everywhere — from mobile phones and Wi-Fi routers to Bluetooth gadgets. While these devices offer convenience, they also emit wireless radiation, a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. 

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, a UK medical doctor and founder of the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE), raises urgent concerns about the health impacts of non-ionizing radiation, especially for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, those with electromagnetic sensitivity, and the chronically ill.

In this presentation, Dr. Mallery-Blythe highlights how current safety standards for wireless radiation (ICNIRP and FCC limits) fail to account for these risks, leaving millions exposed without adequate protection…..

Health Risks of Wireless for Children, Elderly & Vulnerable Groups Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe

Source: International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICEB-EMF.org)

In this video, Ron Melnick, PhD, chairperson of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) explains why existing safety standards for wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation are outdated. 

Melnick led the design of landmark studies at the National Toxicology Program that found links between cell phone RF radiation exposure and cancer in animals, yet regulatory agencies never acted on the findings. He has served on numerous scientific review boards and was a member of the scientific working group of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluation of cell phone and wireless RF.

Melnick emphasizes that current radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, set in the 1990s and reaffirmed in 2020, are outdated and based only on short-term animal tests that ignored long-term and non-thermal effects….

Ronald Melnick PhD Wireless Health and Environment: A Global Framework for Protection

Source Article: International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Cell Phone and Cell Tower Radiation and Cancer: Dr. Lennart Hardell

Concerns about the health effects of wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation have been growing as cell phone (mobile phone) use, 5G deployment, and cell tower installations expand across cities worldwide. 

In this presentation, Professor Lennart Hardell, a leading researcher with decades of work on environmental and cancer risks, highlighted the scientific evidence indicating that everyday exposures to wireless RF are not safe, even at legally allowed levels. 

According to Dr. Hardell, “Human epidemiological and case studies on RFR exposure from cell phones and antennas show evidence of harmful effects for people.” 

Vimeo Link, PDF of powerpoint slides 

Real-World RF Radiation Exposure from Cell Antennas

Hardell’s presentation documented how antennas are increasingly positioned in places that involuntarily expose the public to RF. His presentation references his publications measuring RF exposure in the real world which found ordinary citizens, including children, commuters, and workers, are regularly within close range of high-powered antennas without awareness or consent.

Clinical Evidence of Microwave Illness

Beyond environmental surveys of RF levels, Hardell also presented clinical data that point to biological effects of long-term RFR exposure. In collaboration with Mona Nilsson, he summarized seven Swedish case reports of individuals reporting acute onset of microwave syndrome symptoms such as sleep disturbance, fatigue, headache, memory impairment, and skin problems. The health symptoms subsided when individuals relocated to lower RF exposure environments. 

Perhaps the most urgent message from Hardell’s presentation is the disconnect between current international exposure guidelines and scientific research. While regulatory agencies use the ICNIRP limits which base safety limits on short-term heating effects, case studies and epidemiological research are documenting adverse outcomes, including neurological symptoms and tumor risks, at exposure levels well below those limits. Existing standards are not adequately protecting public health. The presentation by Dr. Hardell reinforces the importance of recognizing that RFR exposure is not only a technological issue but also a public health challenge.

Sign up for ICBE-EMFs Mailing list here to get science updates from the Commission.

About Dr. Lennart Hardell

Hardell has a long career as both a physician oncologist and as a cancer epidemiologist, now retired from the Department of Oncology, Örebro University hospital. He now leads the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, promoting scientific research on the association between the environment and cancer and other chronic diseases.  In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s he was the first to document an increased risk for cancer in persons exposed to phenoxy herbicides and contaminating dioxins and his group has also conducted studies on the cancer risk of persistent organic pollutants, such as PCB and the risk for malignant lymphoma.

Dr. Hardell has published more than 380 peer-reviewed scientific articles and his research has contributed to the cancer classification of different agents such as TCDD, PCB, the herbicide glyphosate, and radio-frequency fields. Dr. Hardell was also an invited member of the scientific working groups of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluation of RF. 

Some of the Scientific Publications on Wireless Radiation by Dr. Hardell  

Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson. High Radiofrequency Radiation in the Surroundings of 10 Schools in Örebro. Fortune Journal of Health Sciences 

Hardell, L., & Koppel, T. (2022). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Reviews on Environmental Health.  

Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 

Koppel, T., Ahonen, M., Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2022). Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians’ heads. Environmental Research 

Hardell, L., & Nilsson, M. (2023). Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation. Annals of Case Reports. 

Hardell, Lennart and Nilsson, Mona. “Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation” Reviews on Environmental Health, 2024. 

Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., Koppel, T., Nordström, M., Hedendah, L. Kl. (2020). Central nervous system lymphoma and radiofrequency radiation – A case report and incidence data in the Swedish Cancer Register on non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Medical Hypotheses 

Hardell, L. (2017). World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health—A hard nut to crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology 

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2020). [Comment] Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncology Letters,  

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2021). Lost opportunities for cancer prevention: Historical evidence on early warnings with emphasis on radiofrequency radiation. Reviews on Environmental Health 

Hardell, L., Nilsson, M., Koppel, T., & Carlberg, M. (2021). Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 

Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy  

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology 

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2013). Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Reviews on Environmental Health 

Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma—Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Pathophysiology: The Official Journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology 

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncol. 

Hedendahl, L., Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2015). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity—An increasing challenge to the medical profession. Reviews on Environmental Health 

Nilsson M, Hardell L. (2023) Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office. Ann Clin Case Rep 

Hedendahl, L. K., Carlberg, M., Koppel, T., & Hardell, L. (2017). Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi. Frontiers in Public Health 

Tags:cell phone cancer riskcell phone health riskcell phone radiationlennart hardellwireless radiationWorld Health Organization

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781/full

James C. Lin

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

EXCERPT:

Concerns about the impacts on the public health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) exposure are increasing with the rapid proliferation of cellular mobile telecommunication systems and devices. There is also lack of confidence surrounding the applicability of stated health safety rules, limits and guidelines for RF exposure including their use for 5G and the expected 6G. This paper: (1) considers the currently promulgated standards for safe human exposure to RF radiation, (2) examines assumptions underlying the standards, (3) describes the roles of the military industrial complex in influencing research on the health effects and standards setting for safety levels, (4) discusses the engagement of an industry-regulatory complex, (5) explains the interaction between ICNIRP and the WHO-EMF, (6) scrutinizes recent publications of WHO-EMF commissioned systematic reviews, and (7) concludes with some observations on an apparent paradigm shift.

Introduction

In 2021, there were nearly 15 billion cellular mobile devices operating worldwide. The number of RF mobile devices is expected to reach 18 billion by 2025, an increase of 4 billion devices compared to 2020 levels (1). The current world population is about 8.2 billion according to the most recent United Nations estimates (2). These numbers suggest that currently each person alive on Earth is subjected to the exposure of two or more RF radiating devices. Likewise, about 97% of adults in the U.S. own a mobile phone or cellular device including 99% of those between the ages of 18–29 and 94% of the population residing in rural areas (3).

The fast spread of cellular and mobile telecommunication devices and systems is raising concerns about the health impacts and safety of radiofrequency (RF) exposure. There is also unease about the effectiveness of publicized health safety rules, limits, and standards for RF radiation used by these devices and systems. …

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1619781/full