# Research record

> Key studies and hazard classifications, each stating what was found, what it can and cannot establish, and where it sits in the evidence base.

- Canonical URL: https://emfbase.com/studies
- JSON: https://emfbase.com/api/studies
- CSV export: https://emfbase.com/export/studies.csv
- Records: 13

## Records

- [Ahlbom et al. pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia (2000)](https://emfbase.com/studies/ahlbom-2000-pooled-childhood-leukaemia): A pooled analysis of nine studies that produced the 0.3–0.4 µT figure still cited in every ELF policy discussion, reporting roughly twice the relative risk above that level.
- [ANSES 2018 — collective expert review of electromagnetic hypersensitivity](https://emfbase.com/studies/anses-2018-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity): France's health agency reviewed the literature plus hearings with clinicians, researchers and affected people: no solid experimental evidence of a causal link, and an explicit recommendation that the suffering be treated as real and clinically managed.
- [COSMOS prospective cohort of mobile phone users](https://emfbase.com/studies/cosmos-cohort) *(provisional)*: An international prospective cohort that records phone use from operator data rather than recall, designed to address the recall-bias problem that limits the case–control literature.
- [Danish cohort study of mobile subscribers (2011 update)](https://emfbase.com/studies/danish-cohort-2011): A nationwide cohort using subscription records rather than recall found no elevated brain tumour incidence among long-term subscribers, including those with 13 or more years of subscription.
- [IARC classification of ELF magnetic fields as Group 2B (2002)](https://emfbase.com/studies/iarc-2002-elf-magnetic-group-2b): IARC classified extremely low frequency magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of consistent epidemiological associations with childhood leukaemia above roughly 0.3–0.4 µT.
- [IARC classification of radiofrequency fields as Group 2B (2011)](https://emfbase.com/studies/iarc-2011-rf-group-2b): IARC classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on limited evidence for glioma and acoustic neuroma from heavy mobile phone use.
- [INTERPHONE international case–control study (2010)](https://emfbase.com/studies/interphone-2010): The largest case–control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours found no overall increase in glioma or meningioma, with a raised glioma odds ratio confined to the highest decile of reported call time.
- [NTP rodent carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation (2018)](https://emfbase.com/studies/ntp-2018-cellphone-rfr): Two-year whole-body exposure studies found clear evidence of malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats at exposure levels above the human whole-body limit, with no such finding in female rats or in mice.
- [Ramazzini Institute far-field base-station exposure study (2018)](https://emfbase.com/studies/ramazzini-2018-base-station-rfr): A lifespan rat study at far-field, base-station-like levels reported the same rare heart schwannoma signal as the NTP study, at much lower exposure intensities.
- [Rubin et al. 2010 — updated systematic review of EHS provocation studies](https://emfbase.com/studies/rubin-2010-provocation-review): 46 blind or double-blind provocation experiments with 1175 self-reported sensitive volunteers: no robust evidence that field exposure triggered their symptoms, and support for a nocebo mechanism instead.
- [SCENIHR 2015 — EU scientific committee opinion on EMF health effects](https://emfbase.com/studies/scenihr-2015-emf-opinion): The European Commission's expert committee's last full EMF opinion: no established health effects from RF below the reference levels, ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia still unexplained, and no support for EHS being caused by exposure.
- [WHO position on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)](https://emfbase.com/studies/who-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity): WHO recognises that people report real and sometimes disabling symptoms they attribute to EMF, while provocation studies have not shown that participants can detect field presence or that symptoms track actual exposure.
- [WHO-commissioned systematic review of RF exposure and cancer in humans (2024)](https://emfbase.com/studies/who-rf-cancer-review-2024): A systematic review and meta-analysis of human observational studies found no association between mobile phone use and brain or head-and-neck cancers, including for long-term and heavy use.