Mobile communication, WLAN & Co. - Grid expansion - Household appliances & electric installations

Mobile communications, WiFi, and the like – Evaluation of the SCHEER Opinion 2023

SCHEER concludes that below the current limits, there is no moderate or strong evidence of adverse health effects from acute or chronic exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields. The same applies to mobile communications as well.
According to SCHEER, the evidence for non-thermal effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields is unclear. Future research with strict methodological quality criteria is necessary.
SCHEER recommends a technical revision of the annexes of EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC and Directive 2013/35/EU for occupationally exposed persons based on the updated limit value recommendation of ICNIRP from 2020.
The BfS welcomes the opinion of SCHEER and supports the recommendations for further research on millimetre waves and an update of the EU recommendations.

SCHEER – scientific advice to the EU Commission

SCHEER, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks, is one of two independent scientific committees advising the European Commission on consumer safety, public health, and the environment. At the request of the Commission, SCHEER commented on issues related to health, environmental, and emerging risks. However, it is stressed at the beginning of the opinion that the views contained therein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission – even though the latter is the official client:

“The Opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists who are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.”

In June 2021, SCHEER was commissioned with an opinion by the EU Commission. The key question was whether to update the annexes to EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC for the general population and Directive 2013/35/EU for occupationally exposed persons. This should be considered in the light of the latest available scientific evidence since the previous opinion of SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) from 2015. In particular, the updated limit recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) should be included (see: ICNIRP 2020). The request of the EU Commission to update the documents referred to the range of high-frequency electromagnetic fields between 100 kHz and 300 GHz. High-frequency electromagnetic fields are also used for modern communication such as broadcasting, mobile communications, cordless phones, WiFi, and Bluetooth.

Expert group analyses specialist literature for the statement

The opinion was prepared by a working group of SCHEER members and external experts. The members of the working group as well as the external experts were selected according to a transparent procedure described in the Decision of the Commission on the establishment of Scientific Committees in the fields of public health, consumer safety and the environment.

Based on the SCENIHR Opinion 2015, the SCHEER Group analysed the new scientific literature published since then to see whether there is any new evidence on the possible effects of exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human health and to what extent the population is exposed to high-frequency electromagnetic fields. For the evaluation, mainly systematic reviews and meta-analyses were considered. In the absence of these, narrative reviews and scoping reviews were used. Individual studies were included only in exceptional cases.

For the assessment of evidence for adverse health effects, SCHEER refers to the document “Memorandum on Weight of Evidence (WoE) and uncertainties” (SCHEER, 2018)^[1]. Evidence refers to how clearly the results of scientific studies (taken as a whole) speak for or against a particular assumption. The document explains in more detail a classification scheme that categorises the scientific data from different types of studies into different groups according to their weight of evidence.

What SCHEER concludes in terms of content on exposure and health

For the opinion, SCHEER examined studies on dosimetry, mechanisms of action and health effects. A summary of the results can be found in the following table.

dosimetryShow / Hide

Several systematic reviews examined the typical exposure of the population in everyday environments such as homes, schools, and offices. Exposure is highest in public transport, especially at train and tram stops. Despite the increasing use of wireless communication devices, no noticeable increase in overall exposure in these everyday environments has been detected since 2012. The use of the mobile phone at the ear during phone calls in the 2G network represents the largest part of the brain exposure. Exposures of the whole body are determined mainly by far-field sources such as mobile communications masts. However, personal user behaviour is crucial. The use of near-field sources such as laptops or tablets also contributes to whole-body exposure. Regarding the recording of exposure in epidemiological studies, SCHEER recommends the use of objective measurements as opposed to personal questionnaires.

health effectsShow / Hide

Cancer

For the assessment, SCHEER included meta-analyses of epidemiological studies and five recent animal studies (including the NTP and Ramazzini studies) on the carcinogenicity or co-carcinogenicity - simply put: to produce cancer or to increase the incidence of cancer - of high-frequency electromagnetic fields. SCHEER sees several methodological deficiencies and contradictions in the current animal studies that limit their validity. In the meta-analyses of epidemiological studies, several methodological problems that are a possible source of bias (and thus contribute to further uncertainty) were identified. Overall, the evidence for an increased cancer risk as a result of exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields is rated as unclear to weak. In concrete terms, this means: There is little to suggest a causal relationship between EMF and cancer. Further information on scientifically based risk assessment can be found in the radiation protection standpoint of the BfS on the assessment of health-related risks.

Neurological and behavioural effects

SCHEER was unable to find any new meta-analyses or systematic reviews on neurogenerative diseases, neuropsychiatric diseases, or neurodevelopmental disorders (i.e. diseases that can be traced back to developmental or functional disorders of the central nervous system). Human studies on cognitive function, brain activity, and sleep had different study protocols and contradictory results. The evidence from animal studies is unclear. The studies should therefore be repeated under more stringent conditions. SCHEER recommends the use of standardised study protocols that follow basic quality criteria for further research.

Symptoms

This section assessed electrosensitivity as well as the occurrence of headaches and other symptoms associated with exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields. SCHEER agrees with SCENIHR 2015 that all of the scientific data strongly suggest that non-specific symptoms are not caused by EMF. Furthermore, SCHEER shares the opinion of SCENIHR that the scientific evidence speaks against a causal relationship between high-frequency electromagnetic fields and electrosensitivity. Nevertheless, methodological improvements and the use of objective markers are recommended.

Auditory and thermoelastic effects

The current limit recommendation (ICNIRP 2020) no longer contains a restriction that would prevent the microwave hearing effect. The microwave hearing effect describes the perception of a buzzing or crackling sound that can be caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields with short strong pulses. Acoustic perception is not in itself a health risk. SCHEER points out that such a perception could be perceived as disturbing in the professional environment and indirectly lead to negative effects. However, a connection between high-frequency electromagnetic fields and tinnitus or hearing damage is not supported by the literature.

Other health effects

SCHEER summarised the evidence for several other health effects. These include effects on the cardiovascular system, the immune system, and the reproductive system as well as health effects from WiFi signals and the effects of wireless devices on children and adolescents. The evidence for these endpoints was considered either weak, unclear, or inadequate.

mechanisms of actionShow / Hide

In this section, different interaction mechanisms of high-frequency electromagnetic fields with organisms (e.g. cells, animals, and humans) were discussed. The thermal effect (i.e. the heating of biological tissue) is undisputed. The tissue absorbs part of the energy of the fields and thus becomes warmer. This also applies to frequencies above 6 GHz; however, the heating here is limited to the surface of the body. There are limits in place in order to ensure that the heating is not strong enough to cause negative health effects.

Furthermore, different types of mechanisms of action at the cellular level not based on a thermal effect (non-thermal effects) were discussed. These include oxidative stress and genetic and epigenetic changes as well as the role of calcium and the influence of apoptosis (i.e. programmed cell death). There are no systematic reviews and meta-analyses on most of these possible mechanisms of action – only narrative reviews. A partially deficient study quality of the publications included is a recurring problem for all endpoints. With regard to oxidative stress, the results of existing narrative reviews suggest that oxidative balance can be affected by high-frequency electromagnetic fields. However, it is unclear whether this results in negative health effects. Overall, SCHEER does not see any contradiction-free evidence that speaks for the mentioned mechanisms of action and assesses the evidence as unclear.

Results of the SCHEER opinion

In its opinion, SCHEER comes to the following conclusions:

The evidence for adverse health effects from chronic or acute exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields below the limits is classified as neither moderate nor severe based on the 2018 classification scheme^[1]. This means that SCHEER sees no or only unclear or weak evidence in the scientific data for adverse health effects at exposures below the limit values.
The evidence for non-thermal mechanisms of action from cell culture studies is classified as unclear (also based on the above classification scheme).
The technological progress achieved in computational and experimental exposure assessment and dosimetry since 1998 allows for an increased accuracy of human exposure assessment.
New and emerging wireless applications use higher frequencies and lower emitted power in closer proximity to the human body. However, there are situations in which beam forming or intense pulsed radiation can increase exposure for a short time.
Because the updated ICNIRP exposure guidelines can more effectively protect people from high-frequency electromagnetic fields from new technological applications, SCHEER recommends a technical revision of the annexes to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC and Directive 2013/35/EU.
Furthermore, SCHEER welcomes the ongoing systematic reviews by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and suggests that any future changes to the guidelines regarding health effects of electromagnetic fields should take into account the results of the systematic reviews (see also the “Future risk assessment” section).
In terms of future research, SCHEER recommends further research in higher frequency ranges, including the millimetre wave range above 30 GHz. Furthermore, SCHEER is of the opinion that additional studies on non-thermal mechanisms of action that adhere to strict methodological quality criteria are necessary.

The BfS shares assessments and supports the recommendations of SCHEER

The BfS welcomes the update of the 2015 SCENIHR assessment by SCHEER. Unlike the SCENIHR assessment, SCHEER takes into account systematic reviews and meta-analyses (when available) in order to assess the newly published papers. In view of the large number and heterogeneity of the studies, this is a sensible approach.

Because meta-analyses or systematic reviews were not available for all possible effects and mechanisms of action assessed, SCHEER had to rely on other types of reviews, especially narrative reviews. In contrast to systematic reviews, many of the narrative reviews lack a systematic literature search and a consideration of quality criteria in the studies included. An assessment of possible health risks based on narrative reviews alone is associated with uncertainty because there may be a (more or less) high risk of bias in the studies included, and all relevant studies may not be covered. SCHEER also points out this problem.

On the basis of current studies, SCHEER sees no moderate or strong evidence for possible negative health effects below the applicable limits and thus comes to a similar assessment as the BfS. Other national organisations also draw a similar conclusion^{[2, 3, 4]}. Regarding higher frequencies, especially in the millimetre wave range above 30 GHz, the BfS agrees with the recommendation of SCHEER for further research. The BfS is already funding a number of research projects in this area.

SCHEER sees no consistent evidence for possible non-thermal mechanisms of action of high-frequency electromagnetic fields at the cellular level and assesses the evidence as unclear overall. The BfS agrees with this. The impairment of the oxidative balance is considered probable in the narrative reviews considered. However, the relevance of this type of literature study is limited in accordance with the aforementioned limitations. For further risk assessment, the result of the systematic review of the World Health Organisation (WHO) on oxidative stress remains to be seen^[5].

Furthermore, SCHEER recommends a technical revision of the annexes of EU Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC for the general population and Directive 2013/35/EU for occupationally exposed persons. Both are based almost entirely on the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines in the high-frequency range (100 kHz – 300 GHz).

In comparison, the updated ICNIRP limit value recommendation from 2020 contains numerous details based on the current state of knowledge; some of these lead to an increase in the level of protection. These updates have not yet been taken up in the EU Council Recommendation and the directive for occupational exposure. For this reason, the BfS supports the recommendation of SCHEER.

Future risk assessment

For the reassessment of potential health effects from high-frequency electromagnetic fields, the WHO has commissioned 10 systematic reviews in which the BfS is partly involved^[6]. These deal with possible links between mobile phone radiation and cancer, fertility, cognitive effects, general symptoms, oxidative stress, and thermal effects. The publication of the results is planned for the end of 2023. The BfS will take the results into account in its risk assessment and the planning of future research projects.