Relevant Documents


Below are documents which contain scientific evidence for harmful effects of radiofrequency signals, relevant for risk assessment.

Contains studies and evidence for effects on health, with a focus on children.

Technology and Education: How safe are our children?  Lecture to the National Education Union Conference, Northern Ireland, May 2018.


Evidence that the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report is unsuitable for health risk assessment: "Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency [RF] safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation", published in 'Reviews on Environmental Health' 2016, Starkey S, 31(4): 493-503.


The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which set international guidelines on radiofrequency radiation, have dismissed a large body of evidence which has reported increased cancer risks and other health effects below the ICNIRP guidelines: "World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack", published in 'International Journal of Oncology' 2017, Hardell, L, 51(2): 405-413.


In May 2011 the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified wireless radiofrequency radiation as a Class 2B 'Possible Human Carcinogen' based on scientific evidence that linked it with increased risks of brain or head tumours, damage to DNA and other types of genotoxicity, increased oxidative stress and evidence from animal studies (2011 Press Release).  'The Lancet Oncology' published a concise report summarising the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group in 2011.
  The Monograph stated that the classification included exposure to all radiofrequency radiation and not just mobile phones (page 33): “The topic of this Monograph is the evaluation of the carcinogenicity of radiation in the radiofrequency (RF) range (30 kHz to 300 GHz) of the electromagnetic spectrum. This type of radiation is emitted by devices used in wireless telecommunication, including mobile phones, and by many other sources in occupational and general environmental settings”;  “it should be emphasized that the evaluations in this volume address the general question of whether RF radiation causes cancer in humans or in experimental animals: it does not specifically or exclusively consider mobile phones, but rather the type of radiation emitted by mobile phones and various other sources.”

LEGAL OPINION on whether it would be in contravention of human rights and environmental law to establish the 5G-system in Denmark (Christian F. Jensen, attorney-at-law, May 2019).  The document describes scientific evidence for effects of radiofrequency exposures on humans, animals and plants and discusses these in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the EU directive on the conservation of wild birds, on the precautionary principle as well as on the Bern- and Bonn-conventions on the protection of animals and plants. (Please only distribute this in its entirety and contact the author for an agreement if any money was to be paid for obtaining any of it, e.g. if it was included in a book)   


ICNIRP, the body responsible for setting the international radiofrequency exposure guidelines, have produced inaccurate and incorrect scientific information Organisations should no longer be using these guidelines to assess risk or to assume that all exposures below these guidelines are safe: 



www.emfcall.org:"Call for truly protective limits for exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).  ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health."

"Official advice on the safety of radiofrequency radiation, risk assessment and adverse effects", Slides from presentation at PHIRE meeting 5th November 2018, Dr S. Starkey. 














Share by: